Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 23

visible from ullengdo

Macgruder deleted image description without consensus.[1]

The description was added in the first place without consensus. [2]. Given that it you who want consensus, by your own requirements you should now remove the caption/image. Macgruder (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this[3] edit is not acceptable. because, Liacncourt rock cleary visible from Ulleungdo[4][5] and its description is not violated wikipedia policy.

you don't delete image desciption without evidence. it is not a zoomed image.[6](in Korean)[7](in Korean)

An some user says, Macgruder are sock of some Japanese user Opp2.

editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Opp2 (2nd).[8] Masonfamily (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why then are you putting the citations in here? If it's visible and you have the citations then put it in the body of the document. The caption is not appropriate for the photo. Just because you can see something in a photo does not mean you can see it with the naked eye (a quick check of Google Maps Satellite shows this). I removed it because it is not a valid description of the photo - a photo and naked eye visibility have no connection. If you have the citations then put them in the body of the text. I won't object. Could we also stop with this childish "if you don't agree with me you are sock-puppet stuff"?

"You don't delete image desciption without evidence. it is not a zoomed". Sorry, but you don't understand how evidence works. It's not up to me to prove that the image is not zoomed. It is up to you to prove that image corresponds to what the naked eye would see. This in effect means a citation. Without a citation this is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have the citations, and other Wikipedians agree that they are valid, then as I say go ahead and put them into the body of the text. Macgruder (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

it is not a zoomed image. you must show evidence that it is a zoomed image. sorry but your deletion reason is unreasonbale. cleary, photographer and MBC broadcast TV said, this is not a zoomed image. and they says, "it is a visible from ullengdo by naked eyes". cleary, my description is based on public trusted media. and your original research(zommed image) is still not surpassed public trusted media. Masonfamily (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you new to Wikipedia? Please could you read the information about how to cite correctly. You are stating in this comment area that it is trusted information. If so, then it belong in the article itself, not in the discussion area, and if it's not in the article then your assertion is uncited. Once again, you are confused about the nature of evidence. I'm not stating it's zoomed - I'm stating it could be. The responsibility is on the asserter to provide evidence not the other way round. You need to provide evidence that this picture corresponds to the naked eye. Otherwise, I could just take a picture of any random horizon and say : "hey LC is invisible, and you have to prove that this picture was not taken from Korea". Macgruder (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

and this [9] is not made by me. some user 'concern' that you are sock of Opp2. (it is not my claim) you have no right to scold me as a "childish". it can be a personal attack. Masonfamily (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are childish. I'm saying that to constantly accuse people who don't agree with your viewpoint as sockpuppets is childish.(And I see that you are referring to Wikimachine's assertion from 18 months ago- the Wikimachine who has been banned from Wikipedia). I have reworded the caption to correspond to what it is "visible in this photo"

naked eye(Oxford English Dictionary)

noun (usu. the naked eye)

unassisted vision, without a telescope, microscope, or other device : threadworm eggs are so small that they cannot be seen with the naked eye.

By definition, 'naked eye' means no device. So a photo = naked eye is a contradiction. I've described what the photo shows, and thus this is an English language correction which I guess everyone can agree with. Cheers. Macgruder (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

well, you cleary said to me as a "childish".[10]

"Could we also stop with this childish "if you don't agree with me you are sock-puppet stuff"? "

No because you didn't make the assertion. However, you should have taken more care to spot that Wikimachine made this assertion over a year ago, and he himself is a user who has been banned for a year. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you. It happens a lot on this page and I feel it is childish. Macgruder (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"naked eyes" quotation from MBC broadcast. it is not my original research or something. OK? Masonfamily (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then put it in the body of the text correctly cited (you may need get consensus of course due to this page being under probation). It's meaningless in the discussion area. If it's not in the body then it's uncited. I hope I don't have to repeat this a third time. Macgruder (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you've added your citation. I've removed the one that was not from a respected source. I'll leave the other for now (see below). However, this text does not belong as a caption of the photo. It belongs in the body. This issue has already been explained to you on other edits you have made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masonfamily

I'm going to leave it for now but please get consensus for the visibility of LC, and add it to the body of the text where it belongs. Captions are simply that. They describe the picture - they don't make key points of their own that are not in the article itself. There is a good reason for this. Blind people cannot see pictures and so they expect to have the correct information in the body of the text.

Furthermore, your second citation (which I'm going to leave for the moment) is not a credible source. It's an original document. Using an original document as a citation is Original Research which of course isn't allowed. What you need to do is find a credible source that perhaps uses this document.

The reason that the picture cannot definitely be said to correspond to the naked eye is because we have no idea of what point in the TV program this picture appeared. Without actually being able to see the picture in the context of the TV program we cannot use it as evidence. Perhaps, for example, this picture is from a zoomed sequence. It certainly looks unusual as it implied that the cameraman was standing about 5 meters away from the top of a tree. Without any foreground or near reference point of an object of known size it is meaningless. Besides, I don't see have this picture can remain anyway as it in not in the public domain.

If you can't get it in the body of the text in a week or so, I'll remove it again for the above reasons. Macgruder (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring between Macgruder and Masonfamily

File:Sajwoehara.JPG

A banner outside a Seoul government building demanding that Japan apologize

It appears that Macgruder (talk · contribs) and Masonfamily (talk · contribs) made edit wars on a caption of some image as reverting twice and third. Macgruder first reverted 4 times [11][12][13] and Masonfamily reverted also 3 times (though he alleged that his last one is a comprised version)[14][15][16].

This were occurred within just within one and half hour, and they broke 1RR, and other ArbCom rules. (talk page is for discussion not a ground for just reverting other's edit and making personal attacks). Administrative actions might be needed.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you list 3 edits not 4 by me there. Of which, 2 were not reverts, meaning that it seems that '4 reverts' you are talking about is actually 1 revert. And I think if you actually look through the discussion, you might note that I suggested changing it and adding citations which Masonfamily attempted to do. In the end he added 2 citations of which one was obviously not suitable probably because of his lack of experience of knowing how to cite correctly. This I removed while leaving the other citation in place noting that although it was not ideal it would be fair compromise for the moment. I don't really call such a progression edit warring because there was a progression from no citation to a citation at which point the edits were clearly done (although I see the 'slow it down' rule was not adhered to). This is obviously independent of the merit of having the picture there at all - frankly I agree with Fut.Perf. that the picture should be removed totally. 'Deleting any problematic contents should be safer than disputing tendentiously. ' I'll bear this in mind in future :-) Macgruder (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked both (Masonfamily for longer, as his behaviour seems a lot more obviously tendentious). By the way, guys: why on earth is this even an issue? Three things: (a) Please keep in mind that you need to reliably source not only the fact as such (Dokdo being visible), but also its relevance (why is the visibility important, who has been using it as an argument, and an argument for what?) If the relevance doesn't get sourced, any statement about the fact is "original research". (b) The image will most certainly be deleted, as it is quite obviously non-free and replaceable, so don't even bother edit-warring about it; (c) It is plainly obvious that the image was taken with a strong magnifying lense. I mean, come on, any cameraman who'd take such a shot without such magnification would be an idiot. The rock is c.300 m in diameter, and 87 km away from the where the photographer is. You don't need to be a mathematical genius to work out that its visual size will be roughly like that of a postage stamp seen from 10 meters away. Yes, that may be visible "with the naked eye", but it will be a tiny dot in any normal non-magnified photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is so obvious that the image would be deleted soon, so I agree that the edit waring has no merit. I also was tempted to delete another image Image:Sajwoehara.JPG, but I thought it was also inserted by Masonfamily, and did not want to involve in their edit wars. In fact, it was added by Heroeswithmetaphors (talk · contribs). I wonder this image is NPOV, and meets for GFDL rationale because I think the image falls under "fair use" since the image is a derivative work. Deleting any problematic contents should be safer than disputing tendentiously. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

About Gojong's Ulleungdo Reclamation Program(鬱陵島開拓令)

Present article

Korea also claims Liancourt Rocks was effectively administered in recent times as a result of King Gojong's Ulleungdo Reclamation Program (鬱陵島開拓令) issued in Dec 1881.

The citation of this description is Kazuo Hori's thesis. The original of Hori's thesis is here(Japanese)[17]. He described only that Ullengdo is colonized based on the Gojong's Ulleungdo Reclamation Program.(See p.6) He never mention that Liancourt is was administrated by Korea besed on 鬱陵島開拓令. And, a fisherman's testimony in 1947 is assumed to be a source. The activity of the individual person cannot become the evidence of the effective control and administration. A citation by a scholer of international law　is needed. --Opp2 (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Effective administration can occur in the form of acknowledging occupation after the fact; which occurred with the 1900 Imperial Decree. Pleasee be reiminded that Nakai's occupation had neither been official nor permanent at the time he went to Liancourt Rocks to set up a make shift shed in 1904, and that there had been other fishermen engaged in fishing activities long before he arrived. For the moment, I shall change wording from effective administration to effective occupation until I find more evidence.

What does Bold text mean anyway? Lex (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold text is not my commnet. I cannot here your Original reserch. I want the　source by scholer of law, who say that Korea controled effectively. Please show me. The　major　of 鮮干英 is not Law.--Opp2 (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is 鮮干英? Is accurate kanji recognition something you are still working on? Then you are less than worthy of attention, as usual, as you have amply demonstrated, time and again. Since when did wikipedia become an online encyclopedia of international law? If you keep making irrelevant remarks, sloppy additions, and reckless removal of legitimate material, your behaviour shall be reported as malicious, disrruptive behaviour. Remember how you fouled up with the "prior occupation" fiasco? The word prior was not even necessary in the late 19th to early 20th century before the word occupation if it was understood from context. Responding to your frivolous demands and requests has proven pointless. Unless you contribute in good faith, you shall be dealt with accordingly. Lex (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto archives

I've set this page up to be automatically archived by a bot. If a section does not have any replies newer than 15 days, that section will be automatically archived by the bot. Hopefully, this will alleviate any issues with alleged changing or removing of comments seeing as this article is such a known hotbed of controversy. In preparation for the first automatic archives, I have changed two of the sections at the top into notices so they won't be archived (the list of past Requested moves, and the Probation notice). I renamed all of the archives to be in the "Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive x" format so they could be easily navigated. I also removed outdated archive boxes from the archived pages and changed the notice at the top of each archive to use {{talkarchivenav}} to allow easy chronological navigation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: 1696 (sic) Korean official (sic) answer (sic) about An Yong-bok

"On Feb 14　1969 (sic), a (sic) Chosun government answered the Tsushima clan that An Yong-Bok is a ignorant citizen and his activeties are not concerned with (sic) the Chosun government. [22] [2]"

Your translation is inaccurate in so many places, Opp2; the following is the original document and correct translation commonly misquoted by people who do not understand classical Chinese the language in which it is written.

肅宗實錄 券三十一, 肅宗 卄三年 二月 十四日 [18]

Annals of King Sukjong, Scroll 31, 23rd year of King Sukjong's reign (1697), 2nd moon, 14th

東萊 府使 李世載 狀啓言:

Dongnae Bu-county governor Yi Se-Jae submitted a report to the court saying:

館倭言: “前島主以竹島事,再送大差, 及其死後, 時島主入去 江戶 , 言于關白以 竹島 近 朝鮮 , 不可相爭, 仍禁 倭人 之往來, 周旋之力多矣。 以此啓聞, 成送書契如何?”

Tsushima's resident emmissary said: "The former Tsushima lord sent the high emmissary twice on account of Takeshima (Ulleung Is), but subsequent to his death, the current (Tsushima) lord went to Edo and told the Kanpaku, 'Due to that Takeshima is closer to Korea, disputing over it is not possible'. As a result, the Japanese were prohibited from traveling there any more. His labour in arranging this result was indeed great. Might you offer up a report regarding this matter, and possibly send Tsushima a formal diplomatic letter (acknowleding/praising this accomplishment of the Tsushima lord)?

又問: “去秋貴國人有呈單事, 出於朝令耶?”

He again asked: "The previous autumn, a Korean submitted a legal case; did this come from the orders of Korea's Royal court?"

臣曰: “若有可辨, 送一譯於 江戶 , 顧何所憚, 而乃送狂蠢浦民耶?”

I replied: "If there were a legal case deserving a ruling, we would have sent an interpreter to Edo. Why would we avoid (this) and send a silly fisherman?"

倭曰: “島中亦料如此, 不送 差倭 , 此亦別作書契答之。” 云。

The Japanese said: "We islanders also thought so, and therefore did not send an official envoy. Korea should send a formal diplomatic letter replying on this matter as well."

書契當否, 令廟堂稟處。

This matter of diplomacy was referred before the court for a decision.

備邊司回啓曰: “竹島 卽 鬱陵島 一名, 是我國地, 載於 《輿地勝覽》, 日本 亦所明知, 而前後送差, 請已書契措語, 未知其間情弊。 今乃以禁勿往來, 歸功於時島主, 顯有引咎之意, 朝家大體, 不必更責前事。 至於漂風愚民, 設有所作爲, 亦非朝家所知, 俱非成送書契之事, 請以此言及館 倭 。” 允之。

"The Office of Border Defense Command submitted a report [regarding the Tsushima envoy's letter] to the Royal Court saying,

'Takeshima 竹島 is an alternate designation for Ulleung Is, registered as Korean terrotiry in Dong'guk'yeo'ji'seung'nam (the official geographical treatise of Joson), of which even the Japanese are clearly aware. Yet Tsushima Japan have on several occasions sent envoys requesting to revise the wording of the Korean diplomatic letter, the extent of the absurdities of which caused by it during those times is beyond knowing. They even praise their then Tsushima lord for the current prohibition on Japanese to travel, and although their intention to pass the blame (onto the late Tsushima lord) is evident, it is not necessary to reproach (him) on a past misdeed considering the position of the Royal Court. Furthermore, as for the deeds done by an unenlightened subject who got thrown about by a storm, it was not known by the Royal Court, and hence does not require issuing an official letter in response. I request that these facts be delivered verbally to the Tsushima envoy.'

King [Sukjong] sanctioned the request."

In short, the Border Defense Command is proposing that the Tsushima envoy's request to ammend a previous diplomatic letter and to make a statement on An Yong-bok's visit to Japan be rejected on insufficient grounds of the request, but that a simple verbal notice be given instead explaining why the requests are being rejected. This is the Korean court's internal decision of non-response to Tsushima's request. The court had no foreknowledge of An's trip; it's as simple as that.

(Yet what's interesting is Japan's compliance to a Korean civilian's statement; perhaps what he said had legitimacy in the minds of the Japanese with whom An came in contact?)

Regardless, your reading is quite inaccurate; either you fix it yourself, or someone shall fix it for you. Lex (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Lex (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you omit the improtant words about An which is "設有所作爲"　Even oral is effective in International Law. [19]--Opp2 (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"[A] juridicial fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it." -- Max Huber

To help you understand this basic principle in international law, please absorb the following document to the best of your ability. The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law [20] by Taslim Olawale Elias. Lex (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The only official decision of the Korean court is to return an unofficial response in the following spirit: "We will not formally respond to the frivolous request contrary to fact made by the Tsushima feudal lord that tries to bend facts to his advantage." This IS my original paraphrasing. Please feel free to bite, bark or both. Lex (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1785 Map of Three Adjoining Countries

This subsection does not appear to have any direct bearing on any specific instance of the dispute unless as a source of general reference. In that sense, it is pointless the way it is, as the section is not general history but history of a soverignty dispute. Hence I suggest this section be removed or subordinated to a relevant subsection for which the map gains significance. Lex (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Impact of a 1947 MOFA pamphlet on the US: Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper; Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan

My thesis: It appears that a section or a subsection dealing with this pamphlet is necessary to put the noticeably biased US POV's in perpsective, which have characterised the Occupation period, the finalisation of the Peace Treaty, and beyond. If the Japanese government fed the US with biased information, and the US officials bought it without critically removing the bias, the US views lodged at the Korean government loses most if not all of its objectivity as a third-party view as it was orchestrated by the Japanese Foreign Office. In other words, if the information fed to the US State Department was falsified, and if US interests which should have had no bearing whatsoever in determining a soverignty issue, W. J. Sebald's statements to the State Department, the Rusk Letters, and the Van Fleet Mission Report on Liancourt Rocks lose all evidential force. Although only fragments of the pamphlet have been released to the public, we have enough details to characterise Japan's arguments supporting its claim to sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks. This is legitimate material that deserve its fair share in this wikipedia article; should we know but suppress information regarding it, wikipedia could be judged instrumental in a cover-up or a continuation thereof by posteirty as well as informed contemporaries. Hence this is a challege that we wikipedians either live up to or lose in favour of I'd rather not say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The documents, comprising a series of four parts, were delivered to, and subsequently distributed by, Supreme Commander of Allied Powers, to Allied Nations' top officials including those at the US State Department.

• Part I: The Kurile Islands, the Habomais, and Shikotan (Japanese Foreign Office, Nov 1946) 「千島、歯舞、色丹」
• Part II: Ryukyu and other Nansei Islands (JFO, Mar 1947) 「琉球と南西諸島」
• Part III: The Bonin Island Group, the Volcano Island Group (JFO, Mar 1947)
• Part IV: Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan (JFO, Jun 1947) 「太平洋及び日本海小諸島」

The document entitled Part VI: Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan, aiming to influence the territorial definition of Japan in the Peace Treaty, is widely believed to have made such bold, unsupported, and possibly false claims (among other relatively sound ones) as

• Ulleungdo and Takeshima are Japanese; Korea lacked the ability to develop them, being at an incipient stage of resettlement on Ulleung Is. (sic)
• Ullung island is Japanese due to the silimiarity of its climate and vegetation with Japan. (sic)
• Takeshima has a Japanese name, while no Korean name exists for the island. (sic)
• Japan's claim to Takeshima is old. (sic)
• Takeshima has never been claimed by Korea. (sic)
• Takeshima is not shown on any map made in Korea. (sic)
• Takeshima was officially incorporated by Japan in 1905 as a terra nullius. (sic)
• Takesmina islands may be used by US forces as a bombing range and has possible value as a [US] weather or radar station. (sic)

While the Japanese government has put a tight lid on Part I and IV as classfied material, a handful of scholars have gained access to Part IV in the US National Archives (Cheong Sung-Hwa in 1992 and Jung Byng-Joon in 2005) and Part I in the Australian National Archives (Hara Kimie in 1994). That the document(s) had had a singluar impact on US officials such as William Sebald, Robert Feary, Kenneth Young Jr, Dean Rusk, and John Foster Dulles, some of which were high-level decision makers, during the occupation and in the final form of the Peace Treaty is shared among such scholars as

• Shin Yong Ha 신용하 愼鏞廈, Prof. Em. Hanyang University

• Lee Seok-Woo 이석우 李碩祐, Prof. Inha Univsersity

2002 "The resolution of the territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over the Liancourt Rocks"

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/view/?id=223&status=ok

• Cheong Sung-Hwa 정성화 鄭城和, Prof. Myungji University

1992 The Politics of Anti-Japanese Sentiment in Korea: Japanese - South Korean Relations Under American Occupation, 1945-1952 (bibliographical identification only)

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Anti-Japanese-Sentiment-Korea-Japanese-South/dp/031327410X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219938175&sr=8-1

http://www.cheongsunghwa.com/zb/view.php?id=study&page=2&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=28&PHPSESSID=c16f46c354fc4f823831f884cb6dab2a

• Jung Byung-Joon 정병준 鄭秉峻, Assistant Prof. Ehwa University

2005 "[특별기고]윌리암 시볼드(William J. Sebald)와 '독도분쟁'의 시발" [Special Contribution] William Sebald and his role in the beginning of so-called Dokto Dispute. (bibliographical identification only)

http://www.dbpia.co.kr/view/ar_view.asp?arid=599462

2005 "William J Sebald and the Dokdo Territorial Dispute" (reprinted in translation of above)

http://www.koreafocus.or.kr/design1/essays/view.asp?volume_id=41&content_id=202&category=G

2006 "한일 독도영유권 논쟁과 미국의 역할" (US Role in Japan's and Korea's Sovereignty Debate over Liancourt Rocks)

http://www.koreanhistory.org/webzine/read.php?id=144&pid=14

2008 Joong'ang Daily article, "Sebald and Dokdo" (bilingual), Jul 30 summary by Cho Hyun-Wook

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2892980

• Ju Ganghyeon 주강현 朱剛玄, Dir. Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Visiting Prof. Jeju University

2008 "1948년 6월 독도폭격사건" (The Bombing Incident of June, 1948)

http://www.minjog21.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2767

• Wada Haruki 和田春樹, Professor, Institute of Social Science, Univ. of Tokyo

東北アジアの領土問題に関する日本の見方 (Japanese View on Northeast Asia's Territorial Dispute)

http://www.wadaharuki.com/ryoudo.html

サンフランシスコ平和条約における竹島の扱い (How the San Francisco Peace Treaty Handled Takeshima)

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/cccp/camera/HoppouRyoudo/Other/Ullundo/HeiwajouyakuTakeshima.htm

• Hara Kimie 原貴美惠, Associate Prof. University of Calgary,

2001 "50 Years from San Francisco: Re-examining the Peace Treaty and Japan's Territorial Problems"

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/50+Years+from+San+Francisco:+Re-examining+the+peace+treaty+and...-a081005664

• Alexis Dudden, Prof. University of Connecticut, and of course,

"The Takeshima Issue in Japan-Korea Relationship (SMU Conference Paper, draft)"

http://www.smu.edu/tower/_OLD/ADudden%20Paper.doc

• Mark Lovmo, independent researcher in modern Liancourt Rocks' history,

"Early US State Department Views concerning Dokdo"

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page28.html

to name only those who have published their work or whose work has been reviewed on the web. Cheong Sung-Hwa, of Myungji University, has this to say: "This was the only report that the Japanese government requested be sent to the State Department in Washington throughout the entire occupation." The following is a summary of a range of research that Mark Lovmo has seen:

• 1947-09-23 SCAP: A monograph entitled, Part IV of "Minor Islands Adjacent to Japan Proper; Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan", a treatise drafted by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, is sent from the Diplomatic Section of SCAP to the US State Department in Washington.
• This monograph was the Japanese argument for sovereignty over both Ullungdo and Dokdo.
• Copies of the monograph were distributed to occupation authorities when the Japanese Foreign Ministry petitioned to SCAP over Japanese sovereignty concerns in June of this year.
• Upon receipt of this document, the State Department noted that it would be useful for future reference in case the disposition of the islands became an issue in a peace treaty with Japan.
• In fact, the opinions stated in the Japanese monograph seem to have had a major influence on U.S. officials in the State Department´s Office of Northeast Asian Affairs.
• In particular, Directors Robert A. Feary and Kenneth T. Young Jr, and the head of the Diplomatic Section of SCAP, William J. Sebald, would later offer opinions that were very similar to statements in this 1947 document.
• As it turned out, the State Department gave a memorandum to the Korean Ambassador in Washington on August 10, 1951 which was based on soley on the information in "Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan".
• The San Francisco Peace Treay was signed between Japan and the former Allied Powers in order to formally end the Pacific War and was to be pertinent to the sovereignty of Dokdo, as the treaty would deal with the territorial definitions of Japan and Korea.
• Another interesting fact about "Minor Islands in the Sea of Japan" is that the Korean government seemed not to have even known of the existence of this Japanese petition until decades later. -- Mark Lovmo"

See 9/23/47 at http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html

Also find a Korean news report at http://blog.empas.com/ohbosco/read.html?a=6757250 Lex (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A Korea Times article of 2005-2-27: "A news of Dokdo (Tokdo)" reproduced at http://blog.ohmynews.com/cari/entry/A-news-of-Dokdo-Tokdo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Lex (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The JFO pamphlet has been declassified and relased to the public; I have located five out of 16 pages of Minor Islands Adjacent to japan Proper, Part IV: Minor Islands in the Pacific, Minor Islands in the Japan See, Foreign Office, Japanese Government, June 1947 (For Information of the Allied Authorities) at a local university library. Although I would like to see the remaining 11 pages, this is enough to get me going.

Lee Seok-Woo ed., The San Francisco Peace Treaty, North-east Asian History Foundation, Seoul 2006, ISBN 89-91448-68-2-93910. pp. 56-60 Lex (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have created a subsection for Japan and a corresponding Korean subsection with a summary of two documents petitioning territorial sovereignty for respective countries. I have mostly offered a summary of the major points, but I am afraid I might have overdone it with too much material. Any suggestions on cutting down the material to a minimun, perhaps while creating an independent stub article for a longer article, but that would involve creating a new article, which I am not very familiar with. Lex (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleting an "External Link" on grounds of poor English that might invite shibboleth racism

External Link : History of and Sovereignty over Dokdo, Korea.net [21]

This external link is written in horrible English making reading painful, and "Japan's nine points of distortion", which seems to refer to an outdated Japanese MOFA page, has been updated recently to "ten"; an organised Korean response in a point-for-point refutation has been/will be released by the NE Asian History Foundation also provided as an external link by editor Masonfamily.

The poor languge not only hinders easy comprehension, but, more serioulsy, has the potential danger of triggering a racist response such as exhibited by the infamous US official William J. Sebald, who hated all Korean officials whom he met at least in part because their English was so bad (or perhaps because he understood Japanese, but knew close to nothing about Korean). The singular exception to this pronounced case of Sebald's racist attitude was one Chung Ham Pun educated in the US who spoke with a Boston accent.(See last paragraph of chapter "Sebald's Experiences and Understanding of Japan " in [22])

While I do not endorse Sebald's shibboleth racism, I am also keenly aware how prevalent is such an instance of racist response in many native English speakers based on accent. I do not believe we should let a non-issue such as poor language (the Korean accent in written style exhibited in the external link in question) affect the quality of this wikipedia article. Hence the question: Delete or not?

--Lex (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Issuing a raincheck to provide translations for a number of non-English sources for which practical limitations of a mortal did not permit prior execution

The title says it: I shall abide with time and your patience. Thank y'all in advance (smile). --Lex (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt "Rocks"?

I think that the title "Liancourt Rocks" is inappropriate. Now, I appreciate the neutrality of the name and I have no intention of breaking the POV balance, but both the Korean name (Dokdo) and the Japanese name (Takeshima) say that Liancourt "Rocks" are "islands" (shima in Takeshima and do in Dokdo all mean "island"). And Liancourt isn't some kind of reef; it has vegetation and wild animals (even those that weren't introduced to it). So I think that Liancourt "Rocks" is not a suitable name for the "islands". Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources use the title "Liancourt Rocks", so it doesn't much matter what you or I think about the name. Wikipedia reports published information, so that's what we have to go with. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that this talk page is an inappropriate place to place opinions? Mydoctor93 (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Why would it? As long as you are discussing how to improve this article, you can post your opinions on that. If you want to just discuss the rocks themselves, then this isn't the place for that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'll keep that in mind whenever I put some information on a talk page. Mydoctor93 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1. Are physical dimensions of a public notice relevant? 2. Dependence on Ulleung Is could affect legal interpretation of human activity

1. There is a curious remark on the inconspicuousness of the Sanin Shimbun notice.

• 1905 Shimane Notice 40

• Korea claims that it was a almost impossible that tiny sized notice of local newspaper (3.4 cm[78][79]) recognized by foreign.

I do not see why a complaint about the smallness of a public notice should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. True, people are entitled to complain, but in a reference book? Let us not turn a serious article into a tabloid gossip page. Instead, I believe the article deserves comments on

1-A. the extent of Sanin Shimbun distribution; whether and to what degree the Sanin Shimbun notice had exposure to International representations in Tokyo, including Korea's.

1-B. the relevancy of a public notice in case of incorporating a perceived no-man's land when there is evidence it could actually have been taken. This is especially so in the case of uninhabited territory managed or utilised in intervals whether seasonal or other, which still amounts to effective occupation, control or administration. That Japan had not taken action to clear this presence of a doubt could have a major impact on the legal interpretation of the notice.

2. There is also the matter of armed poachers (Nakai's men hunted sea lions with rifles; he was also in serious debt due to failed diving operations in Vladivostok, which made urgent his attempt to monopolise; see Okuhara Hekiun's biography of Nakai [23]) who were a possible threat to civilians on either side, and poachers/fishers/divers operating in Liancourt Rocks waters dependended on Ulleung Is as base.

How does the legal status of seasonal occupants of Liancourt Rocks with a more permanent presence or residence on Ulleng Island affect the status of Liancourt Rocks?

The dependence on Ulleung Is for potable water, food, and shelter could also affect the meaning of a human act committed on Liancourt Rocks, but these potentially significant issues are not dealt with in the article.

To summarise, I suggest we cut down on the gossippy comments of the notice, and introduce more serious topics that can render the article more interesting and deserving of attention. --Lex (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No Japanese military action

Should it be noted that there has been no offensive, proactice, or agressive military (or otherwise) action on the part of Japan with regard to these islands? The Korean press, including Chosun Ilbo and the two English rags, Korea Times and Herald, have reported no such thing. Tarkaan (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tarkaan. What might be the time frame you are thinking of when "there was no Japanese military action (or aggressive behaviour involving Liancourt Rocks)"? --Lex (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that would be in the time frame immediately following the proactive measures of the Japanese to designate the islet group as Japanese territory earlier this year. Tarkaan (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tarkaan do you know anything about the historical context surrounding Japan's incoporation of Liancourt Rocks?

The Japanese military's annexation of Liancourt Rocks was undertaken for the express purpose of defeating Russia so Japan could assume control over the Korean peninsula. The island was surveyed for military watchtowers months before Japan annexed the islets. This was recorded in the logbooks of the warship Tsushima in November of 1904.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.htmlClownface (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Juksoe and Kwanumdo to the map

Would it be possible to add Juksoe and Kwanumdo to the map? Does anybody have their coordinates? Jpatokal (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Are those two of the many "pebble islets" surrounding these two glorified rocks? I don't think there's any reason to add names for anything other than the two main rocks (which are barely large enough to live on as it is). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, which is why I'm asking. Since the article quotes Japanese sources as claiming that "Usan-do" refers to them, not The Rocks, it would be useful to understand what they're talking about it. Jpatokal (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I can see that. Perhaps it would be good to make a separate map showing those in relation to these two rocks? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a map showing where these two are? I can't find anything on them (other than brief mentions in a few articles here and there). I can't find any maps showing them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Split out "International dispute" section to separate article?

This article is way too long and needs to be split. The section which takes up the most space is the International dispute section. I think it would be good to split that section out into a separate article, leaving only a brief description here with a link to the other article. Perhaps something like Liancourt Rocks dispute? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The dispute section goes hand in hand with explaining the naming of the article. I would suggest improving the dispute section. Make wordings shorter, more efficient, but don't take out the details. Currently, the dispute section just presents list of things without organization and good argumentation. Shape and mold them into sections covering more broader topics that unify multiple paragraphs. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Infobox

Liancourt Rocks

Disputed islands
Other names	Dokdo, Takeshima
Geography
Location	Sea of Japan (East Sea)
Coordinates	37°14′30″N 131°52′0″E
Administration
South Korea
Demographics
Population	2 + 43 support personnel (in rotation)

Apparently some people don't like the infobox. Please discuss. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you did not read the previous discussion. Before making drastic change, please use this page first. And please revert your unilateral and undiscussed edit on today and please regard a spirit of consensus. The infobox was deleted by a consensus for the reflection upon the past disputes and possible violation of NPOV; the islets is disputed, not peacefully governed by the two country, So many people were blocked over the infobox. Just because you're an admin, you're allowed to ignore all rules written above? You should have opened a discussion first.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no need to be so acerbic. For the record, the latest discussion about the infobox was at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_17#Infobox (and the section immediately above that). It ended with me making a bold move and throwing it out, with the support of some others. It had been an object of continuous petty strife, and our feeling was it was just not worth it. About the present version, there are a couple of weak points: Dokdo and Takeshima aren't "nicknames"; whether Koreans are the "indigenous people" of the islets is pretty debatable; and whether Japanese and Korean administrative claims should both be presented as actual "administration" has been the subject of endless quarrels. Moreover, partisan editors were forever quarreling about the order of presenting Korea-related and Japan-related entries. (Not that I would personally care about the latter, but it's been a long-standing issue.) On the whole, I'd not be in principle opposed to having a box, but as I said, it's not really worth it. Even if we do manage to get an undisputed version, it adds very little actual value to the article. There's hardly anything in the box that a reader couldn't take in just as quickly and easily by reading the lead. My recommendation is still to leave it out, and I'm certainly going to throw it out if there are the slightest signs of a renewal of the old disruptive quarrels over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the infobox is out of the article. After it was removed, edit warring was hugely decreased (of course, the current stronger enforcement has been affected to editors as well). The article does not need to introduce all the same tendentious dispute by the infobox.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I modified the infobox to be more applicable to this article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored to the previous version cleared by Furf, because you're not consensus, and have not given any rationale why the infobox should be on the article before and after. If I did not visit you, this discussion would not start here. The above statement is not your opinion, but just your decision without any reason.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. It certainly is my opinion, and the infobox (the last one) reflected exactly what was in the article. It's people like you who made me stop caring about this article in the first place as you refuse to compromise on anything that doesn't support your narrow POV. The infobox was completely NPOV after I edited it, so your removal of it was against policy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Baloney <-- No personal attack, I guess you should look at the policy along with the ArbCom rules which you keep ignoring. Inappropriate comments as an admin. Besides, do not defer or attribute your own past problems to me. The infobox itself was taken out by the previous discussion, and you put it back without any reason given. I originally supported the infobox to be here, but many people still fought over the silly order and administration in the infobox, so it was out. Then edit warring at least did not happen over the infobox. You failed to give any good or bad reason why you think the info box is NPOV of should be here. The little change could hardly be a compromise because the self-claim of NPOV can not be NPOV without consensus and approval. As for people like you, and narrow POV (again, WP:NPA), you're included in such the people as you do not show yourself to participate in a discussion. Since the unilateral change and POV, you're one of editors who other supervising admins should watch. Your last comment is, well, nonsense--Caspian blue (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Baloney" is not a personal attack. And again, the infobox in its most recent incarnation was not POV in the least. All it did was gather the pertinent information from the article and present it in a quick-reference manner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You did not listen to what Furf and I said to you. We do all know that generally infobox functions as such, but the infobox in the article has long history to haul edit wars. Non-edit war with no infoboxk is much worth than contentious edit wars with the infobox. As I said before, you're lucky because if non-admin did the same as you did, I could see what the consequence would be to the editor. Besides, whenever any admin made a drastic change to the article, they tended to leave a note or begin a discussion here at first like a good model to ediotors, but you did not behave any of that. Instead you did as if your edit were already discussed or you took an administrative duty to the article per ArbCom rules, which never occurred. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, here's the infobox that Caspian blue removed. Please, tell me exactly how this is biased in any way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You only put Sea of Japan, with no parenthesis of East Sea which is violation on NPOV, and the "claim" entry is not based on the article. Whatever Japanese government protests, the territory is de facto governed by South Korea, just like Japan adminisers Pinnacle Islands regardless of the two Chinaese states' objections. Besides, you may also miss that the order of the countries was the most tendentious subject of edit wars. I don't see any merit of the infobox.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hell, if your only valid complaint is that I didn't put in "(East Sea)", I apologize. You could have edited it to include it (like I just did) instead of complaining about the horrible bias against your POV. And the infobox says nothing about who governs the islands, merely who claims the islands. Everything in the infobox is 100% factual. Facts can not be POV. Regardless of whether you see merit in the infobox, the fact remains that the appropriate infobox(es) should be used in all location articles in order to provide a quick reference to relevant facts in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I repeatedly have said, I really do not appreciate your way of speaking and tone to people. That is pretty much far from my thinking of ideal administrators. That might be my thick bias against your attitude per the past experiences. Anyway, I don't understand your intention to introduce too obvious future edit wars on the infobox. The article has been peacefully remained except several minor edits. The article itself describes necessary information already. If you want to put it back, seek your supporters here. Since only three people participates in this discussion, so wait more input with more time. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The only person complaining about the infobox (at least now) is you. The box pulls information directly from the article, and introduces nothing not found in the article. I even added an "Administered by" section to the infobox in order to please you. Again, the whole point of the infobox is to provide a brief overview of relevant material from the article. It will ALWAYS repeat what is already stated elsewhere in the article, but it does so in a manner which allows someone to briefly glance through it and find small bits of information. You have given no valid objection to the modified infobox. You just keep stating that it's biased without pointing to anything specific in it which can be shown to be biased. I've even modified it multiple times to address points you have made, but you refuse to even consider that the infobox might be useful. Please stop rehashing old and pointedly false claims of POV and instead try to look at it in an unbiased manner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The only person trying to restore the infobox with no consensus is YOU in such the rude manner. You keep repeating that you're NPOV, and I'm not. Who defines so? That is none but you. Furf. already expressed his objection to include it to the article due to the past history. He has been mostly in charge of supervising the article, so I generally respect his opinion more than anyone. You do not need to try to please me, and the comment even implies that you're treating an immature editor. If you want to persuade someone, please be nice. As I already clarified myself to you, I do not support its return after having seen the recent history of the article since Jan.. I don't think the modified infobox could suffice Japanese editor either.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the return of the info box would probably be OK. The article seems to have settled down somewhat and naming lameness is a convenient way to ban users :-) Just do alphabetical for other names and claimed by 'Dokdo, Takeshima', 'Japan, South Korea' and few could really complain about that. Change "Administered by" to "Locally Administered by". The above looks pretty helpful to me. The fact that not much discussion goes on here seems to suggest that the article has settled, and given that other geographical entities tend to have such an info box it would perhaps be a sign of progress to be able to put it back. Just IMO. Macgruder (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just looked up this article after reading about the controversy on the news. I enjoy these geographical summaries, and I would have found this info box to be useful, as it names the governmental areas under which the opposing sides lay claim to it. Perhaps I just like seeing "population: 2" on there :D As a community I would hope that Wikipedians are mature enough to realize that this wiki is not a forum for resolving territorial disputes, but only a place to provide information. As such, I support the return of the info box in it's current form on this discussion page. I do not perceive any POV in this box, but if anyone does, I would encourage them to be specific about what is objectionable, and to be willing to respond to feedback. JorenCombs (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to make the new infobox as uncontroversial as possible. I limited it to stating facts only. Does anyone object to it as it currently appears above? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating the retarded discussion again. (I quote yours) I object to re-insert the infobox. If you really try to insert the infobox, I believe that you will take the consequence and responsibility. Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. All I did was ask for the opinions of interested parties so that I could gauge consensus. So far, we have you who is against it (though you have given no specific reasons why the current version of the infobox is bad), and three people who think it would be fine to put it back in. As I mentioned a ways above, the infobox has been modified heavily from what it was originally, and presents the information in a neutral manner, only reiterating what is currently in the article. It offers no opinions on the information, but simply presents the facts. If you have specific objections to how the information is presented, please explain those reasons. "I don't like it" is not a valid objection. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: Inclusion of the above infobox

This is a dispute over whether the infobox above is neutral in its presentation of basic article information, and whether it should be included in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I have notified the following editors as they have previously participated in this discussion: Caspian blue, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Macgruder, JorenCombs. I also notified Spartaz as he is listed as one of the admins watching this page (in the big dispute warning box at the top of the page). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional note

I intentionally did not notify the Japan and Korean WikiProjects about this RFC because I want outside opinions on this issue. I respectfully request that no formal notice be given to these projects in order to prevent a flood of POV opinions on this issue. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements by those involved in the dispute

Nihonjoe

I have gone out of my way to make sure the information in the infobox is presented in a fair and neutral manner. I have incorporated changes mentioned by Caspian blue and others. I even went as far as to create a variant infobox specifically for disputed islands in order to allow for the disputed information to presented in a neutral manner (since the current {{Infobox island}} didn't allow for it). Caspian blue has maintained that the infobox is POV, but has not given specific examples of exactly how it is POV. I would like outside opinions on the matter as I believe the infobox is a useful summary of basic article information and that the current version (above) succeeds in doing this in a neutral manner. JorenCombs and Macgruder seem to agree the infobox is now neutral in its presentation of the basic article information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue

Nihonjoe mispresents my stance. I'm rather concerning obvious results after the infobox is re-added to the article. The article has a long history on lame disputes over naming orders: One is the order of Dokdo/Takeshima, and the other is which country should be placed on the top over the other country such as administered by Korea/ Japan or Japan/ Korea, another would be Sea of Japan/East Sea, and so forth. Many editors got blocked for the orders, and the country order by alphabet is actually what Macgruder (talk · contribs) has been claiming regardless of Korean editor's objects in the past. Whether editors like or not, it is a clear fact that the territory is de facto governed by South Korea just like Pinnacle Islands de facto administered by Japan. So it is unbalanced that inserting the infobox with the description of "claimed by both countries" would be another ignite to make editors to edit wars (mostly for Korean editors). Even if the allegedly neutral infobox is changed for Korean side, I don't think editors from Japanese side would not bear the change. My point is that why Nihonejoe try to give another bait for editors to continue disputing further. This article has undergone more than enough. Necessary information are already addressed on the article, so that I support no-edit-warring without the infobox than same old lame and tendentious edit-warrings with it.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Previous Infobox

Administration
Japan (Claimed)	South Korea (Occupied)
Shimane Prefecture	North Gyeongsang Province
(Okinoshima Town Oki District, Shimane)	(Ulleung County)
Status
Claimed	Occupied

Please make comments in this section.

• The "Infobox Disputed Islands" box shown above seems quite nice. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• In response to Caspian blue's note about the previous infobox causing edit warring, I would point out that the previous infobox (see right) looked nothing like this one, so any speculation as to possible problems with the new box is merely that: speculation. The only person who has raised any concern regarding the infobox is Caspian blue, and we can't remain like this forever and let our actions be governed by the spectre of what might happen in the future. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to Nihonjoe's comment: No, you're still misleading the previous discussion. Fut.Perf already addressed his concern on the infobox per the past history, and you clearly missed the discussion on Jan. and last October. You're "the very one" pushing to use the "new" infobox, so do not distort my comment and past discussions by several editors not including you.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not here to argue with you. Please allow others to chime in on the discussion as we already know your position. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You're here to argue with me, since your pointing-out is a misinterpretation on my opinion and the past discussion. If you want a regard from me, please be civil and stick to what others have said.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Regardless of what you think, I really am trying to get a consensus here, and hopefully with input from people who aren't heavily invested in the discussion already. I've read ALL of the previous discussions having to do with infoboxes (yes, in ALL 18 talk archives), which is how I found the previous infobox. Taking the information I gathered from reading those discussions, from your comments, from Fut.Perf's comments, and from others' comments, I've worked to address ALL of the concerns previously raised and create an infobox which presents the basic article information in a neutral manner. I'm not giving up because I think it's actually possible to create an infobox which is uncontroversial and neutral.
        • So, here we are with an RFC, trying to get comments from the editors at large because it's not really possible to get any sort of valid consensus with only two people (or three if you count Fut.Perf). As I already stated, you've had your chance to give your opinion, so please allow others to come here and give theirs' without having to wade through a bunch of pointless nit picking. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
          • You're the one who has been making pointless nit pickings on every comments I have made. I only corrected your misinterpretation on "my own opinion" and the "situation". "You're the only one" to oppose --> That is totally false. I already know your stance, so you really don't need to put your cynical comments right under my opinions. Besides, you're just an editor here, but your comments to me seem like "blocking my opinion further" as a "judge". If the consensus you're referring is based on your belief that the infobox is re-added anyhow with some acceptable minor changes, that would be also misguidance. So please let others just read the past discussion and leave their opinion here. Do not criticize or distort my comment further. Thank you.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. The big 2-col info box (the bigger one) is fine. It states the facts at they are. Caspian blue is concerned that it'll start an edit war (Many editors got blocked for the orders, and the country order by alphabet is actually what Macgruder has been [suggesting is fine] - well, editors get blocked for changing the orders - that's a different thing ). This is a legitimate concern but Wikipedia cannot self-censor itself in the worry that agreed content is not displayed. This is easy to deal with. Once the box is decided upon any unauthorized change to it is an automatic ban - no warning. Reverts must go back to the decided one that will be left on this page. Put that clear in the rules of engagement. Senkaku Islands has a box. It's necessary because it is a very convenient way to get the facts clearly and easily.

My suggestion right now is: restrict you comments here to any objections you have to the box. If you don't have objections, say so. If you do have objection, clearly state what they are. e.g. I think that Japan should be written in a serif-font i.e. keep your objections to the box, not past discussions, arguments, etc etc. Macgruder (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been numerously "censored" by editors and admins, and you tried to censor the deleted picture, so your comment on the censorship is very funny. The Pinnacle Island article is not under ArbCom ruling just like the article, so the comparison is also not fit. Why don't you take plausible and rationale examples when you want to object to my opinion? Don't insert things that I never said before. Well, consensus plays always an important role and your claim for the alphabetical order is not based on consensus. I already said my opinion on the box enough, so your last paragraph is well, unnecessary.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

'you tried to censor the deleted picture'. The only meaningful response I can come up with is 'It goes up to 11'. My second paragraph was a general comment. Why did you assume it was directed at you? I'm reminded of an album by Black Sabbath. Macgruder (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is why I don't support the infobox's reintroduciton.[24] --Caspian blue (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Because some idiot IP vandalized comments? So what? It happens all the time. If necessary, we can semi-protect the article. If it's just simple vandalism, just revert it. What you pointed to is not a valid reason for opposing this infobox, especially since it's not anything at all like the one which caused issues before. We need to focus on whether this infobox presents information in a neutral manner. We can deal with petty vandalism, but such vandalism is not a good reason to not put the infobox into the article. If we let the threat of vandalism keep us from doing things here on Wikipedia, we'll be frozen in time and never do anything. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  The above my comment is toward Macgruder, not you. Nihonjoesan.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but I already addressed that concern. Read my above comment again: [Caspian blue's comment] is a legitimate concern but Wikipedia cannot self-censor itself in the worry that agreed content is not displayed. This is easy to deal with. Once the box is decided upon any unauthorized change to it is an automatic ban - no warning. Reverts must go back to the decided one that will be left on this page. Put that clear in the rules of engagement. But rather than digesting that, you went off an a rant about censorship, and complained about 'me objecting to your opinion' when what I actually said was 'You have a legitimate concern'. If you have problem with understanding the English, fine, but it's better not to start arguing with people in such cases. Macgruder (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Macgruder, do not continuously resort to personal attacks. That appears to be your habitual behaviors. I emphasize my concern over the infobox as showing the diff, so why don't you refrain from committing absolutely unhelpful and reckless behaviors? Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Where is the personal attack? What appears to be the habitual behaviour here is that whatever anyone posts - and Nihonjoe is making a great effort to do something for the good of the page - you just seem interested in creating some argument about some past point. I'll give you an example of a personal attack. You should be familiar with it as you wrote it: "As for people like you, and narrow POV (again, WP:NPA), you're included in such the people as you do not show yourself to participate in a discussion" [this is one of the rudest comments I have ever read on Wikipedia, and that's against some pretty stiff competition].

  It was you who decided in response to my very first post in this area to make some non-sensical ramble about censorship, followed by a sarcastic comment about it being funny. So don't start whingeing when people respond to you in kind, as if you're just some innocent bystander. Something about people, stones, and glass houses comes to mind. And it goes on and on  : "Besides, do not defer or attribute your own past problems to me.", "Your last comment is, well, nonsense", "you're lucky because if non-admin did the same as you did, I could see what the consequence would be to the editor.", " really do not appreciate your way of speaking and tone to people." , "That is pretty much far from my thinking of ideal administrators.", "is YOU in such the rude manner.", "Thank you for participating the retarded discussion again.", "why Nihonejoe try to give another bait for editors to continue disputing further", "You're here to argue with me, since your pointing-out", "You're the one who has been making pointless nit pickings on every comments I have made", "you tried to censor the deleted picture, so your comment on the censorship is very funny" (wtf??), "I already said my opinion on the box enough, so your last paragraph is well, unnecessary". In fact, I'm actually struggling to find one comment here where you haven't been argumentative. You may not realize but in English this kind of language appears somewhat passive aggressive. I merely pointed out that it seemed you were struggling with the English by the evidence of your last comment. Why not try to cool down, and simply stick to the topic at hand? If you saw, I suggested that since Nihonjoe is trying to discover any specific problems that people may have with the *content* of the box we stick to that. That was specially written to prevent arguments about past issues. Even that you turned into some issue about censorship (I can only assume that you're confusing your English here as suggesting people stick to the point is not censorship) that has nothing to do with the point at hand saying 'how funny it was'. How is that helpful? In fact, I'm amazed at Nihonjoe's patience with you (more than I would have). He's polite, he's trying to do something here, and you keep insisting on creating arguments. Here's a challenge: see if you can come up with some specific suggesting or problems with the box's CONTENT. Or if you can't find any, you can say that. Macgruder (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Macgruder (talk · contribs), the rudest comment you've ever seen is Nihonjoe's comment. If you want to praise the comment, feel free to do so to him. I only quoted his comment. Also your other quotes of mine is also me quoting Nihonjoe's. Oh, I understand that you think Nihonjoe never should said such comments because he should behave like ordinary admins (well, I've got more than the rudest attack at his talk page though) He is polite? Oh, in your book. You're being very funny making false allegations for yourself. I get that you're upset at my observation, then at this time, you will learn that your (intentional/unintentional) verbal attacks make people annoyed. I said the above from my own observation on you. The mention of English is certainly a twisted sarcasm and personal attacks by you from bad faith. That is insinuating not only my English being very poor, but also my readability and intelligence. Regardless whether you do not realize your behaviors or not is not, people often get offenses by your comments in various occasions. You once tried to block an admin at Korean Wiki with your sock ip at Fut.Perf talk page and you poured childish personal attacks against me and the person and you blanked them for whatever reason (maybe for wrapping up the unfruitful report or shame?). You also attacked an editor who was disputing over an image, and I consider your disguised (unwarranted) lecturing about civility and censorship with more personal attacks is just hilarious. Please focus on your argument, not make rambling more. Keep cool yourself. I don't see any good argument from your rambling.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've already made my points clearly and succinctly. The box is fine IMO, ban people who change it, keep a copy here for reference. I'm not lecturing. I couldn't care less what you have to say (unless you stick to the topic at hand - except it's hard find any examples of that). The issue here is that you started an argument by making a sarcastic comment, and then starting whining about personal attacks. Sorry that you feel that my comments about your poor English are taken to be about your intelligence - that's not my intention, but you're welcome to interpret it that way if it's more accurate. Readability is part of English. Once again, you seem only interested in some imaginary past sleights. You may imagine that Nihonjoe is being rude to you, but I read and I notice that he is pretty polite in general, and when most people are discussing issues there's civility. Take a look through this page - it's you who is the centre of every argument about 'civility' etc. - that should tell you something. I made 3 points to this discussion. One of which actually said you 'had a legitimate concern'. Your response: 'Don't insert things that I never said before.' FFS, I was agreeing with you. Either you don't understand the English or I don't know: you actually start arguing with people who agree with a point you make with an aggressive style. What kind of sense is that? You tell me, how do you expect people to respond to you when you argue aggressively when they are agreeing with you, and when you immediately start off with sarcastic comments to their legitimate points? Answer that and then we'll talk. Anyway, that is my last on that as other editors no doubt find these discussions tiresome. It truly does go up to 11. Macgruder (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  My point is very simple. I oppose to the introduction and said enough about the reason. You're trying to make a fuss to defend for how Nihonjoe is polite (blah!). I did not know that your succinct argument is nothing but rambling without any plausible logic and plus, making personal attacks. Your quotation of my quoting Nihonjoe's is a good example for what you believe is wrong. Nihonejoe has been very rude to me. I'd tried very hard myself having good faith on him, but all I got from him is extremely rude (more than rude) personal attacks, false accusations and cold sarcasm. I don't mind you defend him for your own imagination, but do not push such thing to other people. You're just mad at my criticism on your "habit". That is true that people got offended by you and your sockpuppeting at Fut.Pert is a good example. Besides, I have not said anything about your agreement with some of my opinion. Well, why don't you stop jumping for nowhere? Macgruder, reading your rambling is just wasting of my time.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Let's see how this started. I said:

  "Caspian blue is concerned that it'll start an edit war ... This is a legitimate concern followed by a reasonable opinion on my behalf. Essentially agreeing with you, but saying why IMO this was not a worry. Read that again carefully and notice it is couched in a neutral, understanding tone.

  Your response: your comment on the censorship is very funny. Why don't you take plausible and rationale examples when you want to object to my opinion? Don't insert things that I never said before. Sarcasm plus argument.

  It's clear to me that you simply don't have the English ability to understand the nuances of what people are saying to you. In the above case thing actually complaining that 'I was objecting to you' (when in fact I was agreeing) and 'inserting things you didn't say' ( I actually put your 'legitimate' concern).

  When you don't understand English very well (the above is evidence of that) , don't assume that people are personally attacking you when they disagree with you. They usually aren't (as the above example shows).

  I suggest therefore that you take time to improve your English, and/or check carefully whether people simply are of a different opinion rather than assuming they are 'inserting things you didn't say' etc.

  Since I have no confidence that you are understanding the nuances of my comments, I am going to avoid engaging with you in future which I'm sure will make everyone happy :-) Good luck with your studies. Macgruder (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  Macgruder, it is so clear that you're the one resorting to personal attacks with your lengthy rambling rather using the page to develop your argument. Keep focus on the main subject. If you can't, well, I'd say your calmness would be great help for the discussion. Do not pour such ramblings for your own habitual problem. The conversations with you are totally meaningless and zero-helpful to the talk page. Your false accusation as quoting my (actually Nihonjoe's) comments is hilarious. You're also quite about the example on your rudeness with your sockpuppetry at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. Those are clear example of personal attacks. Your rambling still is going on, and I think I let you indulge in your imagination. Good luck--Caspian blue (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a conversation between multiple people, and anyone may comment if they wish. Regardless of if you were specifically directing your comments toward Macgruder (which was not at all clear in your original comments), my point is still valid. We can't let "what if someone edit wars?" or "what if someone vandalizes?" keep us from doing things here. If someone vandalizes or edit wars, we'll deal with that. The only question here is whether the "Disputed Islands" infobox I proposed above is neutral in its presentation of basic article information. If it is, then it should be included in the article. If it isn't, we should work on it until it is. Do you have any specific concerns about the infobox and how it presents information? If not, why are you trying to prevent this infobox from being included? If so, what are they? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is like what happened a few years ago when we tried to put in an infobox like this one. The core problem is the peoples' interpretation of "administration" so it shouldnt be in there because people are going to fight over the meaning of the word. Good friend100 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Now thank-you. That's a good point. I suggested 'Local Administration' as a possible compromise, as it's factually true. I'm fine with either. What's your opinion Good friend? Macgruder (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Currently Administered by"? With any territory that is disputed, there will be one side which has actual control over the territory, so I don't see how either "Administered by" or "Currently Administered by" could be misinterpreted. They are just the facts. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• [Third party called to give a neutral opinion] I have no objections in putting not only the current administration but different claims in the infobox. However, in other controversial articles like Falkland Islands and Gibraltar only the current situation is described. From what I read in the conversation, the only real objection to the infobox is that it may trigger edit wars due the meaning of "Administered by". That can be easily solved with a footnote explaining the meaning being applied. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the edit war problem is slight overcooked. We make it clear in the Discussion area that any changes at all to the the info-box means a ban then it won't happen. And since info boxes tend to be unchanging it's not a big problem. Keep a copy of the agreed one in this area. Macgruder (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support upper infobox, the one that says "Disputed Islands" (except I'm not sure it needs to actually state "Disputed Islands"). I'm registering this as my outside opinion, I knew/know nothing about the dispute other than what is in the article and two BBC articles linked from it. But at a quick glance I can only see evidence for trouble-makers seeking to upset the generally accepted status quo. Until Japan registers a dispute with a competent legal authority (and I don't think I'm seeing that) or launches an armed assault on the islands (and I don't think I'm seeing that either), I don't see the point in exaggerating the degree of "dispute" that's going on. I'm quite prepared to retract this opinion (and blank this posting) if I've made a factual mistake. PR^talk 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A country does not need to register a dispute to have a dispute. In fact, it is even possible for a country to have a dispute without even realizing it. I don't think that the disputed status of these islets is even slightly questionable, and therefore I support the upper infobox in its entirety. I could not detect anything on it that is either false, or not stated on the article, or in some way misrepresenting the balance of positions and thereby NPOV. And I think it's quite an improvement to the previous infobox. Infoboxes on disputed areas are very hard to compose as the diverging POVs must be equally and carefully accommodated. This one manages to do that pretty well and should make a good addition to the article. Heh, this reminds me of the difficulties with the infobox on Olivenza. Húsönd 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the upper 'disputed islands' infobox, as an uninvolved user who was unfamiliar with this dispute until I ran across it at Requests For Comment and did some background reading. It seems to do a good job of concisely summarising the status quo without any POV problems that I could detect. It is disputed, and it is currently administered by Korea. It's certainly a big improvement on the previous infobox, which is both less informative and to me reads as a lot more POV - there's a lot of baggage that comes with the word "occupied". ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• How about putting it in on a trial basis and removing it if it becomes a source of dispute? I'm no great fan of infoboxes. They have their place but aren't an end unto themselves. Best wishes and hoping this helps, Durova^Charge! 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support NihonJoe's proposed infobox. I believe it presents and summarizes the subject and surrounding issues fairly and neutrally. Cla68 (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion and comments above, I have placed the infobox into the article. The Suggested Rules of Engagement, above, apply to the infobox as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, 日本穣. Of course, the rule would apply to everyone. I believe you would be responsible for your "bold" action here and following outcomes. Good luck.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm only responsible for my own actions. If someone else is stupid and decides to vandalize the infobox or something else in the article, that's their own choice and they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. As someone above stated, if someone messes with it, they get a warning and/or a block. There's no luck involved. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The reintroduction of the infobox is your idea. Besides, I'm bemused to find this addition that If you wish to discuss these conditions you should leave a message below or contact an administrator familiar with the history of this article. Currently this includes ?? Fut perf; Spartaz (perhaps) and/or Nihonjoe. Therefore, I'm only stating the your volunteered duty for the article. You might get very vigilant for your action. Good luck with that.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, my name is there, and yes, the new infobox was my idea (though many people, including you, helped improve it to its current state). I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New York Times article

The recent flare-up of the dispute prompted The New York Times to run a fairly lengthy story on August 31 about these islets. It appears to me that some information from the story might usefully be incorporated in our article, but I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident in editing. I pass the link on to the more knowledgeable editors for their consideration.

One point that struck me was that, according to the Times, 80,000 Koreans visited the islets in the first eight months of 2008. Considering that there is, objectively, no reason for such a visit, the statistic highlights the intensity of the feeling on the Korean side, at least. I suggest it for inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. It's interesting that people can get so worked up over something so small. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone took my property and my house that i worked so hard to build it would be something big because it affects my livelihood especially if they told me that my house and land belonged to them...that is how the permanent Korean residents feel in Dokdo and that is how the Korean people feel. And I am pretty sure that if Taiwan claimed that the westerly islands of Okinawa belonged to them after 50 years Japan and its citizens would be really worked up. personally i do empathize with the suffering of the old generation during Japan's attempt to take over Korea because many Korean women were forced sex slaves. However, it is the past and it is easy for me to forgive and forget because I have not experienced that kind of brutality but all these old women that are in their 70's and 80's holding signs in the air are only looking for a simple apology. Is it so difficult to admit that Japan's regime at that time did sexually molest Korean women and to say we are sorry for that. No wonder why the hate continues because when people see the signs that those old women are holding up in the streets they feel their pain and the hate spreads to the younger generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koguryo18 (talk • contribs)

Japan's prime minister has apologized for things Japan did during WWII. But that has nothing to do with these islets rocks, really. Bringing that up here will only inflame opinions on both sides, so please keep that off of this talk page (and off Wikipedia, for that matter, as this is not the correct forum for such discussions).

Going back to the rocks: There's not even enough room on them for more than a few people to stand at one time. From all the pictures I've seen, they'd be hard pressed to get everyone who is "stationed" there to find a somewhat flat place to stand. Most of the 46 acres (do you realize how tiny that is? and that it's split between multiple rocks?) of land is almost vertical cliffs, with barely enough room to squeeze a tiny little house for the two permanent residents. They had to level off the top of one of the islets to make room for the tiny little building and radio tower they have there. Did I mention how tiny these buildings are? And how tiny these rocks are? You can barely even see them with the various satellite imagery available out there. If it weren't for all this hubbub about them, I doubt anyone would even know where they were, or even care for that matter. That's why I'm so amazed at how much hate and vitriol is tossed around about these tiny little rocks that are barely big enough to be called "permanent land".

So, yes, I find it interesting that so many people want to go see such a speck of a place, and that people get so worked up about it. And yes, the article above was interesting. Did you even read it? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If your really trying to deny links of Japans 1910-1945 annexation of the Korean Penninsula with WW2 then your highly mistaken. You can read on the Wiki page how much control the Japanese empire had over the Koreans. Its from them re-writing books under Japanese control, or not being given sufficient control over their own literature to distribute the maps which would highlight ealier claims for the "rocks" and the Sea of Japan for that matter. The Japanese stance is more resource based now as this has only flared up in recent times, causing the natural Korean compunction to immediately dislike to the Japanese from the past(funny enough the Japanese helped Korea build a successful infrastructure and systems still working today, as you can see quite well). I suggest people check the archives of the english Chosun Ilbo paper on the web which shows both sides quite clear as opposed to the New York Times, which did not take its sources from its own fact finding mission(Editor of NYT for the subject was from a different paper/source, see name attached to Article of NYT). J Webster 7th October 2008 07:53(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk)

Sorry hadnt logged in (J.Webster) Link to english chosun ilbo archives as http://english.chosun.com/ (the NYT article is a Korean living in seoul btw search his name CHOE SANG-HUN. thanks. CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very biased article

At the moment this article only represents the Korean point of view and does not justice to Japanese rights to the island. This must be correct, but article is locked. Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this blatant propaganda!! IsorokuYamamoto (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Any specific parts you have strong objections to? I have no particular opinion either way on the sovereignty of these islets, and the article does not, overall, appear particularly biased to me. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda? Hut, from Korean point of view, the title itself is the reflection of "Japanese persistent propaganda". Just like Krill Islands, and Pinnacle Islands (called Senkaku Island in Japan), if the article follows the same international convention on disputed territories, the title name might be Dokdo. The article is only locked for IP and new users due to the long time disruption. You're a new user, so you have to constructively build your history here. Given your inappropriate your comment at Sea of Japan, I don't buy you're a newbie though.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of this article is bias. I am Canadian, but currently, I live in Japan and teach at a University here. I am trying to foster communication between my Japanese university students and those in other countries using English as a vehicle for greater international communication. I thought Dokdo/Takeshima would be an ideal topic to talk about in class. I came to this article on Wikipedia to gather information for that purpose. Quite frankly, I was very surprised by the tone of the article, which evidently supports the Korean side of this dispute. I don't know if I would feel comfortable using this article, as I do not have confidence in the neutrality of the author. I will refer to several instances in the article that I noticed immediately and take particular issue with:

Instance 1: Under the heading of International Dispute, the author states that both South Korea and Japan are claiming sovereignty and proceeds to state the basis for Korean claims in brief, but does not refer to the Japanese claims at all. This paragraph appears to serve as a kind of introduction to the dispute and therefore, I believe it should also contain a brief summary of the Japanese claim as well.

Instance 2: Also, under the heading of International Dispute, all of the sub-sections referring to historical claims before the 1904 state only the Korean claim and do not give any reference to Japanese historical claims i.e. maps, data etc. I would assume that such historical evidence exists and should be included here. Otherwise, I doubt this dispute between countries would have continued as long as it has.

When references ARE given from Japan's historical documents, they are always documents that support the Korean claim. I would like to see some historical documents supporting the Japanese claim included here for neutrality.

Instance 3: Under the heading 1904 Japan-Korea treaty, the author plainly writes that Japan's motivation for claiming Dokdo/Takeshima during the Russo-Japanese war was not a defensive manoeuvre, but because of Japan's "own violence and greed". Now this whole paragraph's English grammar is rather poor, so it is possible that the author wasn't intentionally making this statement, but it is a very strong POV statement as it is currently phrased.

Instance 4: Under the heading Early Japanese efforts to claim Liancourt Rocks and Ulleung Island, the author makes an arguably unnecessarily comment about Mr. Kawakami Kenzo being educated neither as a historian nor a geographer and, in my opinion, seeming to imply that he is unworthy to be the person in charge of researching and writing the petition to the Allied Powers. Now this may be nitpicking, but I don't believe someone necessarily needs to have been educated in a field to be able to study it in depth and with understanding. At the very least, I feel slightly doubtful that the Korean petition's authors, the Patriotic Old Men's Association, were all historians and geographers because the author of the article describes this associations leader, Mr. Cho Sung Hwan, as being a former military leader, not a historian nor a geographer.

So, consequently, I feel that the author's statement of Mr. Kawakami not being of the correct background to write the petition to be nothing more than criticism designed to remove confidence from Kawakami's statements. Possibly this lack of confidence is deserve as the author claims later, but I feel as though the author should have let the facts presented speak for themselves.

Now there are other reasons why I believe this article to be biased, but I feel as though I am writing too much here and I will simply ask that these instances I have pointed out be discussed and potentially remedied. I would really like to be able to use Wikipedia as a reference for my students. Additionally, I would just like to state that I have always supported the Korean side in this discussion based on what I have read. However, that does make me feel as though there is an excuse for Wikipedia to allow an article of this level of bias especially considering the sensitivity of the subject matter. Thank you.--Kaylarr 11 (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ICAO Airfield Code

[This] is ICAO code for Korean airports/airfields. Just to note, all civilian aircraft are obligated to use this international code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevefis (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, what is the purpose of providing this information? Do you think it should be included in the article, or are you offering it as evidence of Korean claim to the islands, or what? ~ mazca ^t|c 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mazca: why is this information being posted here. There's no way a fixed wing aircraft could land on these rocks. A float plane could land on the ocean next to them, I suppose, as long as the wether was good. A helicopter wouldn't be able to land, either, as the antennae would get in the way. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A helicopter appears to be able to land there[25], and the South Korean government seems to be of the opinion that "[t]his indicator does not back the sovereignty issue that Dokdo is our territory, but it means that we manage the Dokdo islets under the territorial air of South Korea."[26]--Dwy (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I suspect that helicopter pad is fairly new, then. It wasn't in any of the previous pictures I've seen. I'm not sure where in the article that info would be put, though. Since it services lest than 50 people, it seems pretty non-notable to me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just provided a supplementary fact that is related to this article and it is now official with OICA. I don't want to get involved into the discussion, so I want you to decide what to do with this information. I hope there is nothing wrong with that Stevefis (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the confused response. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Additions by User:Lexico

I understand your alarm with unannotated sources; I would have responded similarly had I not been researching the subject in as many sources as were available to me on-line and in print. The vast majority of secondary sources that discuss the subject, unfortunately, are not in English. I could supply bibliographical information (one at a time) that would summarise the significance of the sources if there were a separate section for that; I am not aware of one at the moment. Any workable suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of the island

I think that the article ought to be redirected to "The island known as Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, and Takeshima", as that is the only NPOV title that I can think of. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Then next thing I'd redirect it to The article about what some call the island known as Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, and Takeshima. :-P Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe The article about the tiny little rocks, which some call "islands", known as Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, and Takeshima. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But if somebody disagrees with your renaming, it will become The article formally known as The article about the tiny little rocks, which some call "islands", known as Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, and Takeshima. Which would be cumbersome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

True, that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's stop it here; this is not a forum. Let's make use of this place for something more productive...Stevefis (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting to this. With how much passion is put into some of the discussions here, I think it can be good to occasionally blow off a little steam. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of this talk page was mainly to get neutrality. From a Western view its Liancourt Rocks until internationally claimed by the UN which again is not a netural view. Maybe we could show something on this page linking to other international disputes such as the thai/cambodia site currently in dispute? Maybe it would show criterias the UN would regard as who is more "able" to claim the islets?!CorrectlyContentious (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering South Korea has the equivalent of a platoon of soldiers/police stationed there, I think it's pretty obvious who is most able to claim the islets at the moment. Regardless, the title of this article is not changing anytime soon. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So after World War 2, west germany should have been called, "The allied military control area of Germany"?! Just because you have troops there, doesnt give you an international decree. I was just simply saying if there is a link or study somewhere showing what merits the UN to give disputed land to a certain countryCorrectlyContentious (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What has the UN to do with anything? The UN can't decide territorial disputes, much less "give" disputed territories to this or that side. It's not their job. As for the role of the troops, effective exercise of sovereignty has some (albeit limited) legal significance, although I don't see how it's relevant to any editorial issue of this article right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a talk page and theres no point to make another talkbox. UN has previously decided and discussed plenty of border disputes and tensions, it would be a wise editorial choice to show neutrality in what is decided about certain areas is all im saying? check http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/afr1397.doc.htm or certain resolutions. Even the gaza strip is an example of UN measures to create borders and end certain disputes. Obviously since Japan and Korea rarely speak to each other on nationalistic issues, i was just putting forward a view thanks. CorrectlyContentious (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dokdo

Why did it get from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks? It should be Dokdo again, not takeshima or liancourt rocks.

1) According to this article, Bush said this is korean territory. So it should be called by its proper korean name 2) Americans really have no say in this debate, because it's an argument between Korea and Japan. Just shows another instance of americans trying to butt into everything and thinking that if they call liancourt rocks korean territory, it will be korean territory. NOT TRUE.

Sharodin95 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Sharodin

Why did it get from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks?

It should be Takeshima, not Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks.

1) According article this, this is Japanese territory. So called should be it be by the proper proper

2) Americans really have no say in this debate, because it's an argument between Japan and Korea. Just another show of arrogant instant Americans trying to meddle with everything in the world and thinking that if they call Liancourt Rocks Japanese territory, it shall be Japanese territory. Not TrUe

(Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Please both stop with the nationalistic flag waving. The article is not moving anywhere in order to remain at a neutral title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not... I was merely performing a litmus test. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I guess I could have been more clear. The comment was directed at both of you. Things already get heated enough here without statements which appear to mock the comments made by another editor. Sorry for any confusion. I have modified my initial statement to make its intent more clear. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"its own violence and greed"

I don't know about this topic, but will someone please remove those blatently POV words and replace them with something appropriate?199.67.238.234 (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest something then please? Im not sure whether the link its using is a biased article or not but it seems to link certain documents from previous agreements or treaties. Its reference 64 to a .pdf document. Ill have a look later and try to rephrase it, unless you can come up with something otherwise. Thanks CorrectlyContentious 13:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC) CorrectlyContentious 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Instead of saying, "its own violence and greed," say, "the desire for additional territory."Whiterg57 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

correct English

Much of the confusion could be eliminated if an editor would simply make the changes necessary to render the article grammatically correct.Whiterg57 (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any changes you feel are necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Breaking the rule by User:Elmor rus

Elmor rus (talk · contribs) broke the above written rule regarding "naming lameness" as pushing his POV which practice generally results an "immediate block" to violators per the history of the article. The user who has been editing in Japan and Korea subjects has been long enough to know the rule. Also, his lame edit should be reverted per the rule.--Caspian blue 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The user should have discussed the edit concerning the name of the sea before making it. However, as the resultant article satisfy WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea), i.e. "(East Sea)" is used only once, I don't think revert is necessary. --Kusunose 07:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, if your logic was correct, every "duplicated" terms should be removed from the article.

All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this.

The revert is not only a violation of the ArbCom probation but also a blatant disregard of the past agreement here.--Caspian blue 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith], Caspian (speaking of your comments left on Elmor's talk page). Not everyone who edits an article first reads this talk page. You warned him and he reverted his own edit. End of story. And if you're wondering why I didn't do anything about it when the edit was made: I was on vacation from December 24 until late yesterday (I suspect the same can be said for the other admins watching this page). As it's now been a few days since the edit was made, there's no point in applying the penalty so long after the issue was addressed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I pointed out his violation just like Kusunose and Macgruder did and I suggested Elmor rus to revert on his talk page. Though in such cases, admins here blocked without any previous warning to violators. However, I was bemused at Kusunose's "different attitude" on the same issue. Elmor already reverted his edits after my suggestion, so this is already a "finished story". I would appreciate if you do care less about me.--Caspian blue 07:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Japan has given up soverignty of Liancourt Rocks in 1951 statute

I just found some information (in Korean, though) that Japan has given up the soverignty of Liancourt Rocks in a 1951 statute or two, and it also states that those statutes were erased in some documents Korea received by winning in a lawsuit in Japan. The link is [27]. Keep in mind though that I'm not the best translator in the world and I might have some important parts mistranslated. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found that source link.

The Ministry of Finance ordinances No 4 February 13,showa 26 (1951).[28]

Prime Minister's Office ordinances No.24 on June 6, showa 26 (1951).[29]

This is just done to have decided the range where the pension reaches by departmental regulations.--Forestfarmer (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The news article (I read it in Japanese[30]) reports that some Japanese governmental orders (ones Forestfarmer listed above) excluded Liancourt Rocks from the definition of Japan's "adjacent islands". Those orders were issued during Japan was under SCAP's control and the Japanese government could not exercise its authority over Liancourt Rocks, along with many other islands, because of SCAP Instruction #677. Those excluded islands includes territories which were returned to Japan eventually (e.g. Bonin and Ryukyu Islands) so it does not necessarily mean Japan gave up its sovereignty over them. --Kusunose 09:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The islands that Japan removed (Bonin and Ryukyu) should be probably stated as "given up" then "reclaimed", rather than just "undecided" then "reclaimed". It is stated that the adjacent islands are Japanese territory, and it does sound like that the exclusion of Liancourt Rocks meant that Japan gave up the soverignty. Also, it is notable that while the laws were edited twice after SCAP left Japan, the clause stating that Liancourt Rocks were excluded has not been changed. Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I mean, why didn't they "exercise the authority" after SCAP left? Mydoctor93 (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article on Japan's status on the islets in 1951 is clearly worthwhile to be addressed on this article. If Foresterfarmer and Kusunose think that the document should be implemented with additional interpretation, feel free to add materials supported by news or academic sources (not your own interpretation)--Caspian blue 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fisheries and EEZ area agreement 1965

Check out Syngman Rhee Line. I found a fisheries related document stated on a page on the internet at http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/korea-japan-islands.htm but its not the actual agreement(Cant find). I know now that Japan renounced this in 1988 to try and claim the resources around the sea's nearest to them however, does anyone think there might be a clause stating Japan agrees that Liancourt rocks and especially its surrounding area are Korea's essentially yet not "officially" in this document? Just think if anyone can help me find this document there might be some sort of acceptance or general agreed upon principles of the island and surrounding areas. I might be looking in a wrong area, correct me if i am, just think it may be a good addition to the article.--CorrectlyContentious 08:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

I'd like to know more about the ecology of the islands. The article mentions early on that there used to be trees and a seal-breeding ground on the islands. Do they still exist? (Most wildlife on the Korean mainland has become extinct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dokdo history

I have no idea how exciting this has been so far, but judging from the notices I'd say very. Anyway, the page linked to above was just created, and I figure there are a few stakeholders here that might be interested. The article is a mess, but I have no idea if it is factually correct or not (no sources) and whether or not it falls under the issues being discussed here. For starters, it should probably be moved... except that I see even the title of this article is contested. So... I thought you all should know :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. That page was such a blatantly disruptive and useless POV fork I've WP:IAR'd and speedied it. We've seen so much disruption on this page here we really shouldn't be wasting time on nonsense like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. I actually requested it be protected just in case the information there was somehow worth salvaging, but you guys are the experts :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks dispute

It seems almost certain at this point that the section about the dispute is bound to get longer, not shorter, so I forked it into its own article. That frees up this article to talk about issues such as

• the biodiversity of the rocks
• their inhabitants
• tourism functions
• prominence in Korean culture

and so forth. Shii (tock) 10:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the dispute section was a massive part of the article and a fork is a good idea, hopefully assisting in keeping the main article non-controversial. Is it worth pre-emptively extending the semi-protection to the new forked article? ~ mazca ^t|c 12:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as being under the same probation since most of the dispute centered on what you moved over there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

question?

is there a reason why wikimapia's entry on this disputed territory lists the place under hirata, japan instead of south korea? i ask because reading this article it states that the territory is "controlled" by south korea and every other disputed territory on wikimapia that i checked (i.e. the kurile islands and senkaku) are listed under the country that controls them, i.e. russia and japan respectively. sorry if this isn't the place to ask, i thought maybe wikipedia and mapia were related sites and was unsure how to make a comment on the other site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.3.252 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They are unrelated, so go ahead and try to edit it. Shii (tock) 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dokdo is not disputed territory

Japanese government never formally claimed Dokdo as Japanese Takeshima, it's only local Japanese government claimed the ownership but still no formal claim lodged to South Korean government. Thus the article should be rename to Dokdo as it currently called.--Korsentry 04:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's from a Japanese government website, of course it'll state everything by Japan's point of view, if you need to disagree you'll need to present more solid evidence from impartial sources (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.100.151 (talk)

Japanese disagreement

As for the removed 'Despite Japanese disagreement' in the lead, I'd like to add a reference. See #7 Installation of the "Syngman Rhee Line". Japanese protests were mentioned there. So please do not move the information again. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1st Picture Caption

I suggest an edit to the caption to correct the grammar. Existing caption: East Islet (locating a lighthouse)

Suggested caption: East Islet (lighthouse located here)

Any objections?  --StaniStani  23:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For obviously non-controversial edits like that, feel free to make them without discussion. Grammar cleanup and such is perfectly acceptable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checking. --StaniStani  05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Information listed on Infobox

It is stated in the infobox that Liancourt Rocks is administered by South Korea and claimed by Japan and South Korea. Is that a neutral statement? Also, is it correct to say that ethnic group populating the island is Korean when Japanese people approaching the island is kept out by force by South Korean Coast Guard? Weviwevi (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's break it down.

• Who administers the islets? Obviously South Korea since they have a police force stationed there and Japan does not. This is a fact that neither side is disputing.
• What is the ethnicity of the people on the islets? Korean, as South Korea administers the islets and has Koreans stationed there at all times. This is a fact neither side is disputing.
• Who claims the islets? Both Japan and South Korea have publicly made claims to the islets. This is a fact neither side is disputing.

Everything stated in the infobox is a fact. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed dead links

I changed several dead links. Korea.net and truthofdokdo.or.kr links are dead. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tour Price Needs Fixing

I was just right by this island and tour no longer cost any where near 350,000 won 40-50 might be more acurate but I'm not completely sure. Iamdanthemanstan (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) i agree the sentence~!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.218.56.2 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

lead

I would do this on my own, but given the nature of this page I don't want to start any shooting. A believe a portion of the lead should be written to say "In 1952 the president of South Korea..." or "In 1952, South Korean President..." He was president at the time, not the former president. InspectorSands (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In 1952, former president of South Korea, Syngman Rhee, declared Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory in establishing the Syngman Rhee Line.

this introduction is a heavy Japanese side pov.

it looks like a korea first occupied island since 1952. However,Korea state that island is the Korean territory since 512.[31]

And its reference source from Japanese goverment "mofa.go.jp". so its intro description is not a neutral point of view. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lead to make it read better and hit "save" before completing the edit summary.InspectorSands (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with InspectorSands's current edit. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This dispute information belongs in the Liancourt Rocks dispute article, not here. I'm sure someone can come up with a lead which doesn't mention anything about the claims made by either side in this dispute. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan claim that South Korea goverment controlled this island since 1952.[32]

According to Japanese side claim, Korea did not controlled this island before 1952.

On the contrary, Korea (Both North and South) Korea state that Korea adminstrated this island since 512 AD.[33]

"The GHQ transferred Dokdo to the US Military Base in Korea on January 29, 1946 by SCAPIN #677 and returned Dokdo and all other territories of Korea to the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948 when Korea became independent from Japan."[34]

this is another evidence that Korea controlled Dokdo/Takeshima since 1946. At leaset, They controlled this island before 1952. so, previous edit was wrong. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose to replace the sentences after "Soverignty over the islets ..." with the following:

Sovereignty over the islets is disputed between Japan and South Korea. The islets have been administered by Korea since South Korean President Syngman Rhee declared the Syngman Rhee Line in 1952. South Korea’s Coast Guard has been stationed there since July 1954. --Dwy (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. However, This edit tone looks as a Korea was not controlled Dokdo/Takeshima before 1952. I think this sentence need include in intro. "Korea state that island has been Korean territory since 512"

• Japan claim that Korea controlled Dokdo/Takeshima since 1952.
• Korea claim that Korea controlled Dokdo/Takeshima since 512. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims and statements by the two countries generally do not belong here, but to the "Liancourt Rocks dispute" article. If you don't like the tone of my proposal, how about this?

Sovereignty over the islets is disputed between Japan and South Korea. The islets are currently administered by Korea, with its Coast Guard stationed there. --Dwy (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

not bad. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The link should not be that long. I recommend linking only the word "disputed" to the Liancourt Rocks dispute article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

At least, reader must know which side "govern" island. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I implemented the proposed change, as amended per Nihonjoe's recommendation. If anyone is unhappy with the edit, please feel free to continue the discussion here, with or without reverting it back.--Dwy (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

good. i agree with current edit. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dokdo is the earth in KOREA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.239.147.189 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree with you~~ good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.189.141.108 (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations one-sided?

Looking at the citations for this article, it appears that only one is Japanese -- a (Japanese) government history. Could more of the "objective data" be cited to both Japanese and Korean sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.232.99 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find Japanese sources, please add them. They do not write as much about this topic as Koreans do; the problem is compounded by a Korean editor who translates mass amounts of Korean documents for these articles. Shii (tock) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dokdo(독도) is an island placed in west side of Ulleungdo(울릉도) which is known as Usan-do(우산도). Usan-do(우산도) is a nonexistent island described in old Korean map(八道總圖). This article is obviously describing about Takeshima(타케시마) which is placed in east side of Ulleungdo(울릉도). Takeshima(타케시마) is a real island Administrated by South Korea since 1952(Syngman_Rhee_Line). Please do not edit Wikipedia until you study well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.106.37 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please translate a reference

Most references that include a Korean text also include a translation in English, but this is not the case with reference 20 (the Chosun Daily of June 27, 2003). It is completely in Korean, which means that the information is unverifiable and unusable to the vast majority of people who don't speak Korean. Could anyone please translate the information? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The raw translation from Google is:

But the tree of Dokdo as hard as the original was cast iron is known. Dolseom known as a tough one to grow trees for a long time, but also a tree which grew to Dokdo. "Chosun Ilbo" According to 이규태 Dokdo in the Sea of kkeokeoon Geomundo is made of wood that was're must be some ways is a sword. Also, when you create a boat from the Dokdo kkeokeoon wooden pegs to create bakatda. In his column, as follows: Mr. 이규태 wrote.

"30 years ago, 80 units in Geomundo bakunhak ongeul no fishermen have never met, according to him was guhanmal Geomundo fishermen go to Dokdo ahreumdeuri trees to create a bare-boat, the drag created by the lumber raft was coming. Hit the beach huts and boats can not get to build Dokdo soemot to go to the bare wood and the trees do not have to be assembled. Because the tree is grown in bawiseom some 100 years a dwarf, but a few thousand years a victim of Fire soemankeum dandanhaejyeo because the wood was called. Dokdo Seal one came to the bare wood with oil and putting him on the night of Oil said."

Then the wood was missing from Dokdo why? 이규태 said, "the bat Mungyeong saejae birch trees Dokdo nagatdeutyi're must peg it as a bat or beeojyeo're must have gone to the forests," he estimates. Dokdo is a little different, but the thoughts of people. They blamed the missing trees of Dokdo Dokdo bombing of the U.S. Air Force is holding.

"Dokdo was a huge bomb in the pool peobueot one would live? Enough time to look at the bombing of Dokdo Dokdo side, flame and smoke'm olrateu. Then burn every tree is gone."

—WWoods (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A beautiful Engrish text, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it :) 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

독도의 나무는 본래 무쇠처럼 단단했던 것으로 알려지고 있다. 오랫동안 나무 하나 자라기 힘든 돌섬으로 알려져 있었지만 독도에도 나무가 자라고 있었던 것이다. 〈조선일보〉 이규태 씨에 따르면 남해의 거문도에는 독도에서 꺾어온 나무로 만들었다는 가지 방망이며 가지홍두깨가 있었다고 한다. 또한 배를 만들 때 이 독도에서 꺾어온 나무로 나무못을 만들어 박았다 한다. 이규태 씨는 그의 칼럼에서 다음과 같이 적고 있다. '30여 년 전 거문도에서 80대의 노 어부 박운학 옹을 만난 적이 있는데, 그에 의하면 구한말 당시 거문도 어부들은 울릉도에 가서 아름드리 거목을 베어 배를 만들고, 또 그 재목을 뗏목으로 만들어 끌고 온다고 했다. 해변에 움막을 치고 배를 만드는데 쇠못을 구할 수가 없어 독도까지 가서 나무를 베어와 그 나무못으로 조립을 했다한다. 왜냐하면 이 바위섬에서 자란 나무는 왜소하지만 몇 백 년 몇 천 년 풍운에 시달려 목질이 쇠만큼 단단해져 있기 때문이라 했다. 독도나무를 베어오면서 물개 한 마리를 잡아와 기름을 짜고 그 기름으로 밤을 밝혔다.' 그렇다면 독도에서 이 나무가 없어진 이유는 무엇일까? 이규태 씨는 '문경새재 박달나무가 방망이 홍두깨로 다 나갔듯이 독도 나무도 나무못이나 방망이 홍두깨로 모조리 베어져 나갔을 것'이라고 추정한다. 그런데 울릉도 주민들의 생각은 조금 다르다. 그들은 독도의 나무가 없어진 주범으로 미 공군의 독도폭격을 들고 있다. '엄청난 폭탄을 퍼부었는데 독도에 풀 한포기 살아있겠어요? 폭격당시 울릉도에서도 보일 정도로 독도 쪽에서 불꽃과 연기가 피어올랐으니까요. 나무는 그 때 모조리 타버렸죠.

means:

The trees of Dokdo were originally known to be as hard as iron. Although long known as a rocky island on which it was hard to grow anything, trees were growing on Dokdo. <Chosun Il-bo> According to Mr. Lee Gyu-Tae, on Geomundo off the South Coast there were clubs and rollers made from wood taken from Dokdo. Also, when making boats, they used wooden nails from wood that was from Dokdo. Mr. Lee writes thus in his column: "30 years ago in Geomundo I met an old fisherman in his eighties named Park Un-hak, and according to him, in the times of the Greater Korean Empire Geomundo fishermen went to Ulleungdo and cut down big trees to make boats, and took it by making it into rafts. They would make huts on the beach and make boats, but they couldn't get iron nails, so they would go to Dokdo, cut down wood and make the boats using wooden nails made from the Dokdo wood. Because although the trees that grow on this rocky island aren't tall, they are as hard as iron due to weathering storms for hundreds, maybe thousands of years. While they brought back the Dokdo wood, they would also catch a seal, boil oil from it and light the oil." Then why did these trees dissappear from Dokdo? Mr. Lee thinks that "just as the birches in Munkyeongsaejae were all used up as clubs and rollers, the trees of Dokdo were all used up for wooden nails, clubs or rollers." But the inhabitants of Ulleungdo think differently. They think the main reason Dokdo's trees dissappeared is the US Air Force's bombing of Dokdo. "They rained shells upon Dokdo, so I can even a balde of grass be standing? During the bombing, fire and smoke on Dokdo was such that we could see it from Ulleungdo. The trees all burned then."

--Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition

I intend to revert this recent addition: [35]. The claims made here are speculative, and, to the best of my knowledge, factually wrong. I am not aware of any technical and legally relevant definition of "resident" that depends on economic self-sustainance, and I'm pretty certain there is no rule that would make sovereignty dependent on such a criterion. (There is, IIRC, a rule in another context, when it comes to determining whether something is an island or a mere "rock" for purposes of determining the extent of Continental Shelf areas and Exclusive Economic Zones, which says that an "island" proper must be able to sustain economic life of its own, but I don't see how this comes in here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I find both of the premises in the sentence (the definition of a resident, and the automatic classification of it as Korean territory) somewhat dubious, and without a citation it really doesn't belong in a contentious article. ~ mazca ^talk 12:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What are they eating ?

"As of November 2004[update], 8 tons of malodorous sludge is still dumped into the ocean every day."

How do 45 people create 8 tons (?) of malodorous sludge a day. Is that metric tons or American tons ? What are those folks eating ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography: Distance to Japan (Honshu) and mainland Korea

The discussion on the Liancourt Rocks fascinates me. Yet I wonder (especially because of this accuracy in this matter) why the distance from the Liancourt Rocks is given with 250km to Japan. If you measure yourself on e.g. http://www.freemaptools.com/measure-distance.htm you see, that the nearest point of main Japan (Honshu) is 212 km away from the eastern islets' coast line and mainland Korea the already cited 217km from the western islets' coast line. I would suggest to correct this. DerKorken (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to have important images added

Dear Admin:

I have some images that would improve the content of this article. These are images of Liancourt Rocks as seen with the naked eye from Korea's Ulleungdo Island.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/dokdo-visib.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/dokdo-last.jpg

Please reply ASAP to verify and include a description of who donated this picture to avoid copyright issues.

Yours Truly:

Steven J. Barber c/o dokdo-takeshima.com Dokdo-takeshima (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steven, thanks for offering these images. In terms of copyright, you are welcome to upload these images if you can vouch for it that you own the copyrights to them – i.e. they were made by yourself or by a contributor to your website who explicitly donated them to you. Please send a confirmation mail from an address associated with your website to our "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org" address to confirm their copyright status. – The other thing is a content issue. You seem to be presenting these images with a view to proving a certain point, about visibility from that other island. The problem is, the whole idea that this point is in any way relevant (in the context of the debate over historical sovereignty), might be what we call "original research" on your part. What we'd need is (1) independent reliable sources explaining why their visibility or non-visibility matters at all; and (2) independent, reliable published sources confirming that they are in fact visible (otherwise, somebody might easily suspect the images to be forgeries). As per our "original research" policy, you simply cannot use your own photographs to "prove a point" here; you could only use them to illustrate a point whose truth and relevance is independently verifiable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, by definition, a picture is not the naked eye. Macgroover (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Assumption made wrong with wrong citation with source #33

Kaledain (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)To whoever this may concern,

I noticed that in the article it states "Both nations' claims extend back at least several hundred years. Significant arguments supported by a variety of historical evidence have been presented by both parties, which have been challenged by counter-arguments with varying degrees of success." under the dispute section. I checked the citations number 33 and looked at the link. it does not specify that this dispute has been going on for hundreds of years but rather stated, "To understand the message on the bag is to go back more than a century, to the beginning of an emotional land dispute between Japan and Korea." Therefore although there are other articles that does prove the author's/s' meaning in that this dispute has been on going, the article they chose does not prove the time length that this issue has been going on. more than a century means "more than 100 years" and if they meant several hundred years I am quite sure that the author, Kareem Fahim, who works at the New York Times would have stated that. Thus in short either Kareem has not looked into this issue as much as other creditable researchers and reporters or the person who wrote that section of the Dokdo Wiki article is exaggerating things. Although I do understand there are biased opinions in this issue, I would like people to at least quote with the right sources.

KaledainKaledain (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

East Sea and Sea of Japan

I saw there are reverts on those notations. If you argue that one of them is the standard or common practive, you should provide references. --Cheol (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, references are not necessary in this case. If you'll notice, the infobox above explicitly states: "Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this." Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Plus, there's a naming guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea), which has been stable for several years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. It's not a successful consensus, as they are arguing in the talk you pointed. I don't agree it has been stable. --Cheol (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not sure what talk page you're refering to. The vote for the current naming rules was taking in 2005. The last talk entry regarding this issue on WT:Naming conventions (Korean) about this body of water was in 2008. Perhaps you mean the talk page for Sea of Japan. If so, I do see that there is a current debate. As of the moment I'm looking at it, I see 9-10 votes (not sure exactly how to count some of those comments) opposed to the name change, and only the original person making the proposal in favor. Should that move be approved (which seems extraordinarily unlikely, given the current consensus), the next step would be to propose s change to the WP:Naming conventions policy; should that policy be changed, then it would be appropriate to change the name here and elsewhere in English Wikipedia. But we definitely cannot have that debate here--for everyone's sanity, we need to stay with one consensus method for naming this body of water across the English Wikipedia. The debate cannot be held on every single page that contains a link to that body of water.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk of the linked page above. --Cheol (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And that discussion has now been closed with a sound defeat, per WP:SNOW. So it appears this article will have to with the body of water described as it is currently. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)