Talk:Tsushima Island/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Page title: Island or Islands?

対馬島 refers to an island, not islands. Geographically, Tsushima is a single island just like Eurasia and Africa are a single continent. Tsushima's Suez is two canals constructed in the Edo period and Meiji period. --Nanshu 05:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are islands around it.

But it is split into two main islands now! Furthermore, that Dokdo call 群島 or 諸島 instead of 島 despite the fact that it is made up of many islands? No right?-User:Mr Tan

Again, almost all islands have islets around them. Do you think Taiwan is islands rather than an islands?

And canals don't count. It is something like calling Jutland an island (or islands?), not a peninsula, because it is separated from the continent by the Kiel Canal!--Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Almost all islands have islets around them. If geographers want to include them, they would call them 群島 or 諸島 instead of 島. --Nanshu 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, explain why you moved this from Tsushima Island to Tsushima Islands. Tsushima as a region consists of one major island and some small islands around it. The Japanese term 対馬島 obviously refers to that single island. --Nanshu 02:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will move this article back to Tsushima Island. --Nanshu 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

See the map for yourself [1]

It is Islands. Also, how deep is the canal? I believe that it is more of a bay or something like a river. Kamino-shima and Shimono-shima are two seperate islands from the map.

If you still don't believe me, use yahoo or google and search for Tsushima Islands and Tsushima Island. For me, I follow the majorty.

Tan 00:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried 
Google.com  Islands 37,000 / Island 24,000.
Yahoo.com  Islands 29,400 / Island 19,900.
Mr.Tan, Did you really checked google/yahoo? I can't believe your sayings. Poo-T 21:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan is wrong. See the official site of the Tsushima city. http://www.city.tsushima.nagasaki.jp/foreign/where/english.html Tsushima is refered as an island.16:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima is an island. You don't use "shima" (島) to refer to a group of islands in Japanese. This article should be renamed back to "Tsushima island" Hermeneus 17:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put this question to the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard [2][3]. According to it, there is no standard for counting islands regarding artificial waterways but its 1986 survey treated Tsushima as a single island.

P.S. Google doesn't work for this case because "Tsushima Islands" also covers "Iki/Tsushima Islands" etc. --Nanshu 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See ""Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, perhaps one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between the great Aso^ Bay and the Japan Strait, not only dividing the land mass into two islands but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea (between Korea and Tsushima) into the straits of Japan (between Tsushima and Japan). of the [4] for the Island(s).

And we do not care what the Japanese write. We are talking about the present, not the past! Also, see Islands of Singapore for comparison. See the Jurong Island for example--even though they are reclaimed to merge into one island from many islands? Why is it Island, not Islands? If people still could not understand why it should be Islands, I would suggest a reality check. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. From the very beginning, we are aware of the two artificial waterways. I'm tired of hearing your parrot like repetition. --Nanshu 15:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima is officially recognized as an island by the government of Nagasaki, Japan: "Tsushima is the third largest island in Japan (excluding the Okinawas)." [5] It cannot possibly be "the third largest" if split into two or more smaller islands. The official data on the area and the population of Tsushima are all of an island. You cannot find such date for the alleged upper and lower islands of Tsushima individually becuase they are not recognized as individual islands. Encyclopedia Britanica entry of Tsushima also recognizes Tsushima as an island: "between Korea Strait and Tsushima Strait n.w. of Kyushu; made up of large island Tsushima, separated into n. and s. portions at high tide, and three small islands; total land area 269 sq mi (697 sq km)." [6] Hermeneus 16:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TO Mel Etitis. Could you explain the reason why you change to "islands"? And who decide it is "correct"? Baru 00:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Mel Etitis moved the article without discussion. And such a dirty trick [7] isn't welcomed in Wikipedia. --Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My arguments are summerized as follows:

• The government bodies (the Japan Coast Guard and Nagasaki Prefecture) treat Tsushima as a single island.
• The Japanese term 対馬島 (administrative and uncommon term) refers to an island. Otherwise, geographers would apply 諸島, 群島, etc.

--Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what the Japanese think; I do not care about their error. So long as Tsushima appears to be two seperate islands on the map as of today, I do not care what they say, but rather the atlas. Mr Tan 04:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's is his own personal opinion and Wikipedia is not the place for original research, whereas the recognition of the island by the Japanese government is official and merits reference on any credible encycropedia. Hermeneus 05:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My research has its sources; and I have already stated all of them in my previous comment at [8].

I don't know the scope of "today" in your definition, but Tsushima had already had two canals in 1986. Of course, the authority of marine surveys was fully aware of them, and treated Tsushima as a single island. The same is true of the Geographical Survey Institute [9]. We don't have to take account of artificial waterways in the case of counting islands. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name change

When changing article names, could people make sure that they also change the text in accordance with the new title? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is Islands, not Island, see [10]. I will go over and attend to it now.

Mr Tan 13:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Talk page was a mess, and wherever the reasons for moving the article were originally placed, I (and, I suspect, others) missed it. In any case, having given your reasons, it's best to wait until agreement is reached before moving the article. Now that the discussion is in the open, as it were, we can assess the grounds for moving or not moving.

Mr Tan's reasons for "Islands" are largely specious at best (on his argument, we should rename the Rhode Island article, as the atlas tells us that most of it isn't an island at all. Names don't necessarily describe (see also the Holy Roman Emperor who, it has been pointed out, was neither holy, Roman, nor an emperor). Also, the idea that it's irrelevant what Japan says about part of Japan is peculiar to say the least.

On the other hand, the reasons for "Island" aren't wholly convincing; names that are plural in one language often become singular in another, and we should be asking whether the English name should be singular or plural. The Columbia Encyclopedia (and another edition), Britannica, American Heritage Dictionary, various academic writers (e.g., [11], [12], [13], [14]), The Japan Times, other relevant Wikipedia articles, Wikitravel, and many reputable Japanese and foreign sites (such as [15], [16]), all refer to islands, and those sites that use the singular appear to be referring only to the largest island, ignoring the smaller islands (which may be insignificant, but which nevertheless exist).

There's at least enough doubt over the question to mean that changing the article's name (which means either changing many other relevant articles, or leaving this article out of step with the rest of Wikipedia) shouldn't be rushed into. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"it's best to wait until agreement is reached before moving the article."

The general rule no one would object. But we deal with Mr Tan. Do you really think we will reach consensus? I've alreay presented what I needed to say, and Mr Tan only repeats himself. What's next?

And yes, there are not a few sources that adopt the plural. But as for "authoritativeness," they cannot compete with the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Department of the Japan Coast Guard and the Geographical Survey Institute.

Small islands around the Tsushima Island dropped out of the discussion in the very early stage. No doubt Tsushima-jima refers to the main island. In addition, most islands have islets around them, but there are many singular island articles in Wikipedia. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should stop the arbitrary selection of a default status. Your version is a product of Mr Tan's madness that is full of errors already pointed out here. Now that the talk page is arranged in accordance with the article, you should concretely specify your disagreements instead of abstract objections if you disagree. Everything is up to you. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, You reverted. Then, you proposed suspension of reverting. Good tactics. Baru 12:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an inadequately argued-for, and non-consensus change. I then suggested that people discuss the issue. If you have a problem with that, you might be in the wrong place. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seems to be too lazy and self-righteous to propose suspension. You said that change to island is inadequately argued-for. But, as far as I know, the only person who changed the title with no reason is you, Mel Etitis. And you declared "islands" is correct and change to "island" didn't get consensus. Who decide that "island" is wrong and "islands" get consensus? Are you the judge of wikipedia? Baru 12:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Your message is nonsensical, bearing little relation to reality, and is thus impossible to respond to sensibly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Langbox

We don't need Korean pronunciation table because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Officially, South Korea uses 쓰시마 (phonetic translation of Tsushima) instead of 대마도 (Sino-Korean reading). --Nanshu 06:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then why the Japanese? What we want is the Korean name, not the Korean pronouncations! Even Dokdo has the table of names, which pronouncation is needed to be accompanied. Hangul is a script, not pronouncation! Tan, 14:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the name table according to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/name table. For your information (you seem to know nothing about the situation), Japan and South Korea use phonetic translation for each other's language. For example, South Korea calls Tokyo 도쿄도 instead of 동경 and Japan calls Busan プサン instead of ふざん. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name you stated above is a Korean translation of the Japanese name. What we want is the original Korean name, which would otherwise be written differently.

Tan 18:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean by "the original Korean name?" We don't need a Korean name for the Japanese place name because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. And if we don't need a Korean name table, we don't need that table since we decided not to put a Japanese-only table (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles/name table). So I deleted it. --Nanshu 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think we need to put a hiragana Japanese name of the Korean Peninsula on its article since it also was a Japanese terriroty in the near past.

See the name table of Liancourt Rocks for yourself and try to analyse what I'm saying. Tsushima is another sensitive issue for Korean-Japanese disputes, after Liancourt Rocks. Both Japanese and Korean names should be there, Japanese first, then Korean, for Japan controls Tsushima. The reverse applies to Liancourt Rocks.

Tan 21:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Korean government is not pressing such a rudiculous claim on Tsushima unlike the Liancourt Rocks. Saintjust 10:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not forget that the Koreans have significantly contributed to Tsushima's history as well! So, since the Koreans have a great part in retrospect to the islands, I feel that the Korean name should be up, partly as a sign of honoring their contributions.

Tan 13:34, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

We're not in the business of honouring people, but of writing an encyclopædia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Korean name should be added for "Daemado" is widely known to the Koreans since time in memorial. I still could not understand Nanshu's resentements.

Mr Tan 11:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On May 30 2005, North Korea officially broadcasted that "Great Korean ancestors created the first missile system (military rocket)". It's clear that they didn't contribute to any progress about rocket. Then, Why should we not edit Rocket with Hangul? :P) Also, I hope to rewrite Texas, as Spain and Mexico contributed to Texas development so much. Why no Spanish writing?Poo-T 04:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we would take Mr Tan's logic, we have to add the Japanese and Chinese name of South Korea to the Korea page. Baru 20:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about the Karafuto on Sakhalin? The Japanese name is there despite the fact that Japan no longer claims Sakhalin! Mr Tan 07:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ypacarai's objections

I have noticed that he strongly opposed to have the Korean name: He says that no other country claims Tsushima besides Japan. But the Korean name is widely known to Koreans since ancient times, but he has been removing it. See his [[:User talk:Ypacara%ED|talk page]] for more details; but just because Koreans do not claim Tsushima as its territory in national level-scale does not amount to have it removed.

Mr Tan 04:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Korean name has been known to Koreans is irrelevant; the French name for England has been known to the French for centuries, but the article on England doesn't have a multilingual box. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case on England and France in retrospect to Korea and Japan to Tsushima is different. While the Koreans has a long-standing claim on the islands (intermittently), it would be relavant to add the Korean name than not to do so.

The French and English, is not so, even though I have heard that England conquered part of France, or France conquered part of England, the conquest, or claim, apply only apply to a small part of England or France. But when Korea conquered, or claimed the Tsushima, the claim, or occupation, include the entire island(s), partially to its smaller land area.

Mr Tan 11:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to jump in here, Tan, but those two references you tagged as Additonal Reading directly address this point at length - after repeated investigations by many parties, Japan's claim on the Islands goes back well before the 240s.

Those dates are rock solid as they are based on MULTIPLE references in the KOREAN court that document the Island in Japans possession and the historian commented on the clear lack of any counterclaim. There are further references that are unsupported by multiplicity even farther back, but I don't recollect a date, one may not have been given. Both the authors I cited address the matter, since the Tsushimas played an import role in the cultural ideas and peoples migration path into Japan. It is very clear that the small boat technology made voyaging risky, and that such traffic was sporadic and minimal. In general, the Chinese Culture came across at various stages, but it is also clear that Japan ruled the south of Korea for a time before that date. Historic records on both sides of the Korea strait refer to a Queen holding a big chunk of southern Korea and much of Southern Kyuso, but the verifiable historic record doesn't say a lot more... The next clear references are those in the 240s. I may have some of that jumbled, as I wasn't reading for a test, but the FIRM CLAIM in the 240s is something I'm posative I read and have right - I'd have to read about the Queen again if it matters. (And it seems it shouldn't - Japan ceded any claims on Korea 60 years ago.)

By Contrast, Englands claim to the French Throne date from the 1300s (iirc off the top of my head), and no credible authority would assert that England still claims Normandy.

In Sum, Any group today claiming Korean ownership pretty much has to be of the Wacko Fringe Variety, right up there in credibility with People claiming "They Saw ELVIS" (Presley) somewhere. (Elvis has suicided in the 1960s) Such people are not quite dangerous enough to be institutionalized, but not safe enough to be easy with as a neighbor either.

If you can't produce at least one credible historian asserting such a claim, you really have no legs to stand on and are wasting peoples time. If you like, I can cite page references, or scan the book pages and email them to you. As I wrote in my 'long' message yesterday, the best thing to do here is make the revert yourself. Fabartus 13:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot make out very clear what you are trying to say--but if I'm not mistaken, you must be refering to the fact that Koreans rarely placd Tsushima as part of its territory see this page--[17]. I cannot see where I said that Japan did not place Tsushima as its own territory before 240.

Do you mean the section "Further reading"? If you like, I can change back to "References", but changing the name is merely my taste, for I believe that this may encourage enthusiastic readers to buy the books, which in turn, may give some help to the article.

By the way, the Korean claims can be seen at the Japanese wikipedia [18]. Also, for the Korean claim by Syngman Rhee, (and other claims on Tsushima), please go to [19].

However, the people who first introduced the territorial claims facts are not by me. I did mention about the map case, and I have provided a link on this very article itself.

I would like to say that I cannot find any reason to why the Korean name should be removed (is that what you are refering to?) While the French has a transliteration of the English name, this applies that Tsushima has a transliteration in Korean, which is "쓰시마 섬". But the case of my added Korean name is different: I add "대마도", a translation of the Japanese "対馬島", also known by its Korean transliteration ""쓰시마 섬". Had the Korean name of Tsushima only had a transliteration, I would have not bothered to add it.

For the benefit of Mel Etits, you say that there is no need for the Korean name on Tsushima. Then how about the Portuguese name "Formosa" on Taiwan?

Furthermore, the Korean name was already in Tsushima long before I added the Hangul characters--see [20], [21]--the Revised Romanization of the Korean name was already there. What I added--the Hangul, Mccune Reischauher (Hanja was added by User:Jong) was a follow up from there. If anybody wants to have a removal, please ask both of them. I do feel that it is brings more harm than good--readers will have a disadvantage if they wonder if Tsushima has its own Korean name.

I apologise if part or all of the message content does not correspond to Mr Bartus' question, for I am a bit confused on what he is saying. I will be happy if he is willing to explain more clearly again. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the recent Korean claims on Tsushima in retrospect to your question "In Sum, Any group today claiming Korean ownership pretty much has to be of the Wacko Fringe Variety, right up there in credibility with People claiming "They Saw ELVIS" (Presley) somewhere. (Elvis has suicided in the 1960s) Such people are not quite dangerous enough to be institutionalized, but not safe enough to be easy with as a neighbor either. ", I would like to point out that there is one claim from the municipal council of Masan claim Tsushima to be Korea territory. Although technically it is not a "Wacko Fringe Variety", neither it is a officially recognized as "disputed", so it is in between. If you are looking for sources, I would suggest that you proceed to Ypacarai's talk page for links.

For the Syngman Rhee claim, I have already mentioned in my previous comment. Thanks.

Mr Tan 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Ypacarai

I think that adding the Korean name will be relavant; for Korea has a significant role in Tsushima's history. In contrast, please see Taiwan for example--the portugues name "Formosa" is stated there as well. (The historiical postition of the Portuguese in Taiwan is similar to the historical position of the Koreans in Tsushima) If you still have objections, see the section on top "Ypacarai's objections". Mr Tan 02:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that Ypacarai is behaving like User:Nanshu; he relentlessly removed the infobox without taking active participation in the case. I have already explained, and held out for a day, but he seems to be uninterested in responding, stating in his summary as "unnecessary infobox". To me, his summary is absolutely lame; for what his does is merely for his own taste which will subsequently disbenefit readers. Mr Tan 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sick to arguing with you. Well, another name of taiwan, formosa is named by a portugues saylor (or pilot) on a dutch ship. Did you really read that article? It says "The Portuguese made no attempt to colonize Taiwan." Do you see any stupid bilingual infobox there? Please notice that your claims are totally lame, not mine. --Ypacaraí 14:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment: I do not ignore people's questions or comments unless necessary, even though their comment may not be at all be comprehensible to me. And that is the way I communicated with Mr Bartus. Mr Tan 15:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The info box is merely for organization of the article structure. Also, I do not care the meaning of Formosa or Daemado as in Taiwan to Tsushima, so long it is not a transliteration of the same name. As I have pointed out, Tsushima in Korean is transliterated into 쓰시마 섬, and 대마도 is the translation Tsushima.

If you are still not satisfied, may be you should look at Sakhalin; the Japanese name Toyohara and the Chinese name are put up, even though they have not made any official territorial claims for a very long time. While the names are displayed on the page; they are even transliterated. So long any foreign people who play a significant role on a piece of foreign land, it is the norm to have the foreign language name put up. Mr Tan 15:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How can I be satisfied with your childish argument? --Ypacaraí 10:26, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

I do not care whether my arguement is childish, or not. If the Korean name cannot be put up, just because Korea does not claim Tsushima at a national level; how about Sakhalin? The Japanese name "Karafuto" is stated on Sakhalin.

And like the Koreans in Tsushima, the Japanese have significantly contributed to Sakhalin historically. And your fuss over the Korean name Daemado is childish; I have so far not seen any objections on the Japanese name of Karafuto. And if you cannot even understand with the difference between 쓰시마 섬, and 대마도, ask a Korean. And if 대마도 had never existed, or not widely used by the Korean people, I would not even bother to put up the Korean name, and this applies to how the French call England. I do not care what Daemado or Tsushima means. Mr Tan 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. How long will you continue the fuss? Japan renounced the souther portion of Sakhalin but doesn't approve the Soviet's (and thus Russia's) sovereignty over it. --Nanshu 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not care whether it has renounced its claims, or soverignity over Sakhalin. What I'm saying now is the Korean name on this article.

Take a step further: While the Japanese currently does not claim Sakhalin; the Japanese name Karafuto is on the article and there is no objections on the removal of the Japanese name. The same applies to Tsushima; South Korea currently does not claim Tsushima; so why is there resentement among you Japs on having the Korean name shown?

I want to make this point clear: The Japanese have historically contributed significantly to Sakhalin; and the Japanese name has its rightful place to be stated. The Koreans have historically contributed significantly to Tsushima, and the Korean name has its rightful place to be stated. Objections? Mr Tan 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In view of the fact that our Japanese clients do not have any more reason to counter-argue to why the bilingual infobox is "needless" within a time span of approximately one day, I shall reinstate the bilingual infobox. However, new objections are still strongly welcome to be posted. Mr Tan 03:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add comment here because your claims are nonsense and not worth discussing. Noone will agree your lame theories. --Ypacaraí

• I made no claims; comparison yes. The infoboxis merely for name comparison and its own historical sentimental purposes like Sakhalin and Karafuto. Mr Tan 07:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And your reverts are simply insensitve and insensible. If you want think that bilingual infobox is needless, it is mere sentimentalism. Why don't you do on Karafuto instead? The Japanese name is there, and Japan no longer claims it, and it is Russian territory. Or do you simply hate Koreans?

Also, you removed the copyedit and the move article templates, and this is vandalistic. Mr Tan 07:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why do you cling to me? Noone supports your bilingual infobox. Nanshu doesn't, Fabartus doesn't. Paste here links for articles on territories those got such bliningual infobox. Till then, I'll keep removing YOUR infobox. No other such article have bilingual infobox because there are no rules to add such bilingal infobox in an article of territory that's not under international territorial dispute. --Ypacaraí 08:37, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Sakhalin, Russia (formerly no infobox, but has Russian, Japanese and Chinese names). See its history before I edited: [22]
• Atlasov Island, Russia, Japanese name Oyakoba showed. Japanese did not claim Oyakoba also.
• Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (city), Japanese name Toyohara displayed. Japan does not contest to soverignity over Toyohara as well.

You notice that the name of the Island in three languages are there before I edited? Also, this article already had the Korean name in Tsushima province, before the content was shifted here!

And what's the harm in Sakhalin and Tsushima? Sakhalin is no longer contested by other countries (Japan), like Tsushima is no longer contested by South Korea! The infobox is for organization, and what we are concentrating is putting up names of the island in more than one language. Why? I did this (User:Kjrocker did that first in [23]). Hello, Like Sakhalin, Atlasov and Toyohara, It is also for highlighting the significance of historical reasons! Opininons? Mr Tan 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another admin removed your infobox. There, snap at him. I simply can't keep up with you and your lame logic. --Ypacaraí 11:14, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I have already explained why, but whether you are convinced or not I cannot do anything further than this on you. Mr Tan 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's "this"? reverting? Please don't do it. Ask user:SlimVirgin why she(he) removed your infobox. --Ypacaraí 12:36, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I have dropped her a message concerning this (and another seperate) issue, but whether she reply to it is up to her. If she remove it again, I won't do so immediately. And my previous edit is not revert, if you observe. Mr Tan 13:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained, and even dropped SlimVrgin a note, but she is not interested in this issue. You just couldn't seem to cooperate, and you are very stubborn to removing the infobox. Neither you can explain further, and you have been very stubborn here. The map you stated says "island", and this is not compatible with the current article which states it as "islands".

I am reverting your change, for your change is certainly vandalistic. Unless you do not revert anymore without good reasons, dispute resolutions may have to be taken against you.

And please note that Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger just by removing the infobox. Please don't do that any more. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ypacarai, I am telling you for the last time; what is the big deal about not having the infobox? Unless you have good reasons, it is already becoming vandalism. Please stop your insensitive removes. Mr Tan 16:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again. Japan doesn't approve Russia's sovereignty over Southern Sakhalin while all the coutries do approve Japan's sovereignty over Tsushima. The situation is completely different. --Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the following explanation which is to be put at the section of "Territorial claims" would suffice:

South Korean ultranationalists call Tsushima as Daemado (Sino-Korean reading) instead of Ssusima (transliteration from Japanese).

--Nanshu 03:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You are partially wrong. During the Joseon dynasty and even before that, Tsushima was known as Daema-do. And I do not care whether it is Sino-Korean or what so ever, so long it is not a transliteration, it is a seperate name like Sakhalin and Karafuto. Who knows? The meaning of Karafuto could be the same as Sakhalin! Mr Tan 06:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you show proof that Japan does not approve Russia's soverignity on Sakhalin? If they do not recognise Russia's soverignity, they would have claimed Sakhalin. But they do, and Japanese maps show Sakhalin as Russian.

I understand your second point. However, I have mentioned that there is mention of Daema-do day in Tsushima from " the Masan city of Korea declared June 19 as "Daema-do day" on 18 March 2005,..." here, how can people know the Korean name if they have no infobox? And there is no strong objections on the Korean name being displayed besides you. You are creating confusion for readers who want to know what is "Daema-do" like this. Even if you hate me or don't like the Korean name, at least please have a sense of consideration for the avid readers. Opinions? Mr Tan 04:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Korean historical impact on Tsushima is very significant, just like the Japanese on Sakhalin. See [24] for more information. Mr Tan 05:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Southern Sakhalin, see maps made by the Japanese government: [25][26]. Again, the situation is completely different.

And yet again, I put information on the term Daemado in the section of "Territorial claims". That suffices.

P.S. The langbox on Sakhalin should be deleted. Langboxes are used for chaotic Korean romanizations. Other languages in these boxes are only for the sake of NPOV. --Nanshu 07:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Today, Tsushima is part of Nagasaki prefecture of Japan.

The word Japan should be in one of the first two paragraphs. I shouldn't have to read half the article to known which country it belongs to if the word Nagasaki doesn't tell me. (Maybe there's a Nagasaki Korea for all I know.) 4.250.168.145 17:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the dawn of history, Tsusima islands has been part of Japan. --Ypacaraí 22:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I partially object. At least during the Joseon dynasty, Tsushima has been colonised by Korea. More evidenced is provided (in Korean) abot Baekje connections with Tsushima.

Tan 12:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Oei Invasion? Do you think how long the colonization lasted? --Ypacaraí

Yup. The So clan submitted to Korea, rather than to Japan, until the Seven-Year War by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. A hundred to two hundred years, I think.

Also the links that I have provided on Talk:Tsushima Islands#Baekje connections? Have a look. But I doubt if you could ever understand as they are in Korean. I cannot put up the Baekje paragraph for I was unable to translate it into English.

Tsushima was a dependency of Silla, and politically it may be controlled by Korea. [27]

Tan 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lords of So Clan often cheated both Korean and Japanese authorities in order to avoid war and keep profit from international trade. They sometimes acted as a subject of Joseon Dynasty, but at the same time they were subject of japanese ruler. --Ypacaraí 07:37, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I understand, but during that period, the main political power is vested in Korean, not Japanese hands.

Tan 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you kindly show me reliable source ? --Ypacaraí 11:19, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Ask User:Jong, for he maybe able to help, or follow these links (They are in Korean):

Geography

Strait

Echo of Korea BB Posting RFI

• I'm echoing here the request for info on Korea Vs Tsushima Strait I posted on The Korea BB -Click for Talk, as is geographical, some of which should also be in this arty. This from the Korea BB:
  • == Need Korea Strait Scope Clarified ==

• Mel Etitis just put a copyedit notice on the Tsushima Strait article, I suspect because of the double use (and somewhat opposing usages) regarding the term Korea Strait. (My Bad, iirc). Without a definative resource, this should be let alone pending term clarification.
  • As I wrote Mr Tan this morning, the scope and exact meaning of that term needs researched and defined, and he is in a great seaport to research such in chandlers shops where current nautical charts are available. I'm sure we can count on him to clarify that, as well as get the relative breadths (widths) of each channel passing along the length of Tsushima Islands.
  • I have asked him also to run down what the north and south island are called as well, as historical references available to me are using clear references to both such as 'Opposite the southern Tsushima Island', etc.
  • A clear reference to Iki Island and their respective relative distances and bearings would also be desirable in the arty.
  • 'Needful' in this arty a few reference notes about the channel dividing the original monolithic island, with it's name and some reference (estimate) to the distance it saves on the the trip from the naval bases in the Inland Sea and destinations on the Korea Strait side of the Yellow Sea. 24.61.229.179 15:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've posted a request on the Korea Notice board directed here to see if another can research these as well. 15:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TBDL

Historical Adds

• TIP: Try Dictionary.com for quick checks.

I added to the arty a moment ago, splitting history and adding references for my changes viz political imperative behind splitting the island.

Someone like you User_Talk:Mr Tan or User_talk:Mel Etitis with an interest in the article proper should chase down the names for the south and north island. It boggles the mind that they aren't individually named by now. These are stubbed 'TBDL01' and 'TBDL02' (from "To Be Determined Later").

I didn't do any true copy editting yet, though I've been asked to... I just got here this morning as I was writing a note to User_talk:Mr Tan. (which is not finalized, being in another window!) Sigh - I guess it's the way of a Wiki. Fabartus 12:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

050616 Edits

• • I would suggest the TBDL be put up in the geography section in bracket form---tells people that the northern and southern islands have an alternative name. Post objections here. Thanks.

• Also, only the Iki and Tsushima Islands make up the Iki-Tsushima quasi National park, not the entire Nagasaki prefecture. Thanks.

Mr Tan 03:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• This from Tsushima Island history compare, My last to Current Versions:

Tsushima covers an area of 262 square kilometres, and has two main islands, which are divided by a deep sound, the Aso Bay (浅茅湾) and joined by a causeway. The two main islands are called Kamino-shima (North Island) and Shimono-shima (South Island), also known as TBDL01 and TBDL02 respectively.

• • What are the TBDL terms? Another Language? If so, did I GUESS correct about the N-S relationship?
  • You dropped the All part of the Nagasaki prefecture which needs to be asserted for the ALL THE ISLANDS - I put that in specifically because of references to Iki, but it is needed to logically tie in the smaller islets.
  • If you are going to leave an equivilents table, this one is certainly inadequate. All the geographical features (4 Mountains, two Main Islands, the Channel, et al. should logically be in such a table. I have no position on this other than if it's used, it should be used across the board for everything. In that case, the TBDL's I mentioned above need not and should not tag that sentence, but be relagated to the table. Or am I missing something - isn't the table a three way translation? English Mapped to Japanese mapped to Korean?
• After browsing some of the above, I really want to stay out of the language thing, but I spotted this:Fabartus 13:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean relagated to the table? I don't know, but I have no objections in whatever orientations you may use on the article concerning the TBDL code names. And it is you who first mentioned the TBDL thing. I found it useful, so I suggested to have it up, with TBDL01 for Kamino-shima, and TBDL02 for Shimno-shima. Thanks. Mr Tan 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demographics and culture

I removed the following passage:

The present inhabitants of the islands are culturally and ethnically Japanese, speaking Japanese dialects. Contributing to intermarriages with the Koreans, the local inhabitants did share some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture, especially in the celebration of the Tsushima Arirang festival. [28][29]

We don't need a section of demographics on this article unless it contains population and other information. It isn't worth noting that Japanese people lived in an island of Japan!

I request Mr Tan to provide evidence of "intermarriages with the Koreans."

It can be evidenced in their language and culture. -User:Mr Tan

And we cannot demonstrate "some affinities with the Koreans in terms of ethnicity, language and culture" with the "Tsushima Arirang festival" because it started in 1988 as a tourist attraction. --Nanshu 06:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and see this article from sashi: (I cannot provide the link)

The news article here was deleted. Thank you and sorry, but a full quote violates copyright. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article by rofessor Cho.

See what it says!Tan 14:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that article, but what's your point? I found nothing worth noting at this encyclopedia article that can be deduced from it. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? --Nanshu 04:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's slightly laughable to assume that no intermarriages exist on the island. After all, Japanese/Korean intermarriages have been taking place for hundreds of years. Heck, probably all Japanese have at least one Korean ancestor (and vice-versa). --Zonath 07:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• it is recent intermarriages among the people. Tan 15:50, Apr 17 2005 (UTC)

An individual case proves nothing. If you believe the intermarriage rate in Tsushima is significantly highter than in the rest of Japan, you need a stat that prove your belief. --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, you need a stat. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, did you withdraw your strange opinion about the Tsushima Arirang festival? --Nanshu 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, you are playing Chinese whispers. The last message you wrote doesn't resemble to the original one. Why don't you examine original sources? In this case, here are the official sites of these festivals. [30] and [31]. By browsing them, you can grasp the true nature of these new festivals. --Nanshu 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was corrected by Mel Etitis, I think. It is true indeed, that Korean influence is stong in Tsushima. Also, the passage I gave which you deleted also mentions the Chingu festival. I cannot read Japanese, I'm afraid, for I'm an ethnic Chinese.

Tan 11:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

So you are talking about things you don't know. It means nothing but a nuisance. --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan gave me information on this description (please see my talk page) and I understood. I changed his description a bit from an objective point of view. --Corruptresearcher 04:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Linguistic influence?

Mr Tan, you have to prove linguistic influence from Korean that is worth nothing in the article. A single word doesn't sufficient. Actually, you can find a couple of Korean terms in Japanese slangs (mostly dirty words) such as パチギ (박치기) and タンベ (담배). --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For the Tsushima dialect, see:

• Horii Reiji 堀井令以知, Tsushima hōgen 1950 nen no chōsa kenkyū 対馬方言1950年の調査研究, Kansai Gaikokugo daigaku kenkyū ronshū 関西外国語大学研究論集 No.73, pp. 171-187, Feb. 2001.

We can conclude that compared to its geographic closeness, the influence of the Korean language over the Tsushima dialect is veri little. We can only find a couple of words of Korean origin.

For Korean influence, see:

• Ogura Shimpei 小倉進平, Kokugo tokuni Tsushima hōgen ni oyoboshitaru Chōsen goi no eikyō 国語特に対馬方言に及ぼしたる朝鮮語彙の影響, Hōgen 方言 Vol.2, 1932.

But Ogura's work mainly focused on historical translation materials such as 捷解新語 and 交隣須知. --Nanshu 02:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Check Korean resources. Little is not the same as none. The Tsushima dialect has features similar to Korean as well, not necessarily the vocabulary.

User:Mr Tan\Tan 21:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You have to prove that. --Nanshu 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have edited what you say---at demographics and culture.Mr Tan 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion

This needs fact check.

Buddhism is the most widely followed religion, although Shintoism and Korean Shamanism have some following among the local people. Of late, one can also find a small Christian community made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.

--Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There is also a small Christian community, made up mainly of ethnic Koreans.

I don't know whether this is correct, but it's not worth nothing here because the demographic ratio of Korean is only 0.124%. --Nanshu 01:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Korean signs

Around the islands one can also see Korean signs in addition to the Japanese signs, mainly to assist Koreans visiting the Tsushima Islands.

This isn't worth nothing. Fortunately or unfortunately, we can find Korean signs along with English and Chinese (Mandarin in simplified Chinese) in most tourist sites. --Nanshu 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw pictures of signposts of Tsushima on the net. Go and see for yourself.

Tan 00:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan, you don't understand the point. This is "Demographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) By the way, "I saw something on ňDemographics and culture". You can see Korean signpost in the Narita airport, for ex. It suggests, "There are many Korean passangers who can't understand the native language(Japanese)." But no one would think it like "Cultural influence". Do you understand? Poo-T 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) By the way, "I saw something on the net somewhere" means nothing.

Check external links first. Mr Tan 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aritayaki

Mr Tan, you are really hopeless. You know nothing about this topic and stubbornly insert to the article craps, the product of your mistaken interpretation of fragmentary information and your imagination. You edited this article even though you didn't know what "Tsushima Province" was. This time, you are talking about Aritayaki without knowing what it is.

What's Aritayaki? Aritayaki is a type of pottery made in Arita. So where is Arita? Is it located in Tsushima? No. It is in Saga Prefecture (as explicitly stated in Cho's article). Cho's article [32] consists of three parts. He talks about Tsushima in the first part, then shifts his focus to northern Kyushu, and put a conclusion. What you referred to has nothing to do with Tsushima! --Nanshu 11:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologise then, for my misunderstandings. But take note, (for Mel)

Together with Iki Province they make up the Iki–Tsushima Quasi-National Park.

The province no longer exists, what it pertains to is the island itself!

Tan 21:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this case revealed fundamental problems on Mr Tan's edits in addition to his low reading ability. I said above, "To write an article, we need a ten times larger amount of knowledge in background. But Mr Tan's knowledge is less than half and he fills the gap with his good imagination." He demonstrated it! He used a single source and put an illusion that wasn't based on that source.

We should check multiple sources to write an article. If he had done, he wouldn't have made such a silly mistake. I didn't think I need to say this, but Mr Tan seems to have a different policy.

Quote from his version of the article:

Of late, the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists.

Then read Cho's article. Does he say, "the local Aritayaki pottery has gained popularity among the tourists"? No. He doesn't associate Aritayaki with tourists at all! This means Mr Tan's statement isn't based on his source (aside from Mr Tan's misunderstanding about Aritayaki).

I think these problems are fundamental. Unless he change his editing approach, he will repeat such absurd remarks. --Nanshu 06:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Transportation

I have removed the transportation section; for it makes no mention of the transportation neither in Tsushima, Nagasaki nor in this article. Unless a short paragraph is mentioned concerning the transportation system, I would suggest that it will be removed. Mr Tan 02:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economy

Tsushima's economy is largely dependent on fishery and agriculture, although in recent years tourism has also been a supplement to the islands' economy.

I removed the economy section because it seems to run counter to the truth. [33] --Nanshu 07:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct it then, please. Or at least help me translate what the webpage is saying (I understand little Japanese)

Tan 21:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Done..There goes the proper ammendments at Tsushima Islands#Economy/

Tan 19:14, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

History

Early history

Sanguozhi

According to the Wei chronicles (魏書), Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C, later setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.

The source isn't the Weishu. Mr Tan mixed it up with 三國志 魏書. See 三國志 魏書 倭:

始度一海，千餘里至對馬國．其大官曰卑狗，副曰卑奴母離．所居絕島，方可四百餘里，土地山險，多深林，道路如禽鹿徑．有千餘戶，無良田，食海物自活，乖船南北巿糴．

We cannot confirm from this souce "Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan since the 300 B.C." --Nanshu

Go and see [34]-User:Mr Tan

I saw that. So what's your point? --Nanshu 04:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you still mixed up things. (I'm here not to lecture you but to create an encyclopedia!) Sanguo Zhi and the Wei chronicles that you mentioned are the same book. If unspecified, 魏書 refers to a history book, not a volume of Sanguozhi. (Or can you find the corresponding passage from 魏書? [35]) --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Mr Tan's version still claims, "Archeological evidence suggests that Tsushima was already inhabited by settlers from the Korean peninsula and Japan from the Jomon period to the Kofun period." Cite your sources. --Nanshu 07:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Tsuikai kingdom?

According to the Sanguo Zhi, there were 1,000 families in Tsushima, setting up the Tsuikai kingdom (対海国), which exerted control on the Iki Island as well and maintained trading links with Yayoi Japan.

The terms of 對馬 and 對海 depend on extant manuscripts of Sanguozhi.

But where was the pseudo-Japanese pronunciation of Tsuikai taken from?

Also, why did you translate 國 as kingdom? Sanguozhi only states:

其大官日卑狗 [*piko]、副日卑奴母離 [*pinamori]

Obviously they correspond to Japanese hiko 彦 and hinamori 鄙守. Adn these terms indicate that Tsushima was under the control of 邪馬台国. --Nanshu 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.K. I'll give another lecture.

It is always difficult to reconstruct non-Chinese terms from Chinese characters because their phonetic value vary by region and time. But even if you use modern Japanese pronunciation for convenience, the phonetic velue of 對海 should be Taikai, not Tsuikai. (again, the terms of 對馬 and 對海 depend on extant manuscripts of Sanguozhi, so we have no problem with "對馬") The principle for handling Chinese words in Japanese is to apply 漢音 unless 呉音 or conventional readings are established. The sound value of tsui is conventional, and as far as I know, is used only for tsuiku 対句, ittsui 一対, nitsui 二対, etc.

FYI, examine the original phonetic value of 對馬. It needs careful study as amateurish methods for historical linguistics are a hotbet of tondemo. So don't take my word seriously. The problem in correspondence of 対馬 with つしま is the pronunciation of 対. (馬 is, and was, pronunced ma, or its consontal ending was considerably wakened if there was.) In Nara-period Japanese, つしま was probably pronunced *tutʃima or *tudʒima. In the meanwhile, the Chinese reading of 對 of the day is controvertial as it is 去声. According to a traditional theory, it had consonantal ending -d. An alternate theory says that 去声 had a extra contonant in addition to that of 入声, most likely -s. So the value of 対 would be *tVd or *tVts (V=vowel). They looks much closer to つしま than that in Middle Chinese (something like tu∂i-ma). --Nanshu 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think that this may be the answer to ypur pending questions [36].

Tan 00:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Baekje?

Since the early 7th century, Japan has claimed Tsushima as her province under the name of the Tsushima province, as the Koreans rarely placed Tsushima as part of Korean territory prior to the Joseon Dynasty. However, some of the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of the fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century.

I request Mr Tan to bring primary sources that record Korea's claiming Tsushima prior to the Joseon Dynasty. Also, provide evidence that prove "the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of the fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century." (Who believes this?) --Nanshu 07:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not gurantee, it is just believed. Also, the royals fled to Japan, the nearest spot that they would land is Tsushima, which is near Korea, right?

They might have passed through Tsushima. So what? --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can see that Baekje fell during the 7th century. Also, this news stated that Silla controled Tsushima [37]- User:Mr Tan

Huh? Do you really think a 20th century book have any historical value? I have no time to lecture you on the art of historical deduction! --Nanshu 11:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone can believe everything. If you want it to be included in an encyclopedia, you have to present sufficient envidence. BTW who believe that? --Nanshu 04:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote from the edit of Mr Tan 20:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, Baekje subjects could have colonized the island while some stopover in Tsushima, as evidenced in the fact that Baekje subjects fled to Japan upon the fall of Baekje. You should also not remove Silla, but the history of Tsushima conflicts between Korea and Japan, as evidenced in the fact that Syngman Rhee claimed Tsushima in 1950 touting to its relations with various kingdoms of Korea.

Again, 19th and 20the century sources are of no value as historical sources. Your claim is unsubstantial and thus is to be removed from the article unless you cite your primary sources such as Samguk Sagi and Shoku Nihongi. --Nanshu 03:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Tsushima Islands#Baekje connections? for yourself.

Tan, 00:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Refugees at Tsushima caused by the downfall of the Baekje

After the downfall of the Baekje, many refugees came to Japan actually and can be seen in Japanese history books, such as Nihonshoki. It recorded as follows:

• 664: Prince of Baekje was settled at Naniwa (currently in Osaka Prefecture).
• 665: About 400 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province (current Shiga Prefecture).
• 666: About 2,000 refugees from Baekje were settled at the eastern part of the mainland.
• 669: About 700 refugees from Baekje were settled at Omi Province

However, no settlement at Tsushima could be found in record. If there was significant settlement, such as hundreds of refugees, it must be recorded in the same way as above mentioned. The Baekje was an important ally of Japan so the refugees were treated politely and they do not need to stay such a small and remote island. If someone wants to insist that there were refugees at Tsushima, please show us the source. An original analysis is not welcome. --Corruptresearcher 04:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Baekje connections?

Concerning about the paragraph that I have typed, (During the downfall of the Baekje kingdom, many fled to Japan, and it is believed that many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century.) it is actually an inference from the paragraph (Some of the earliest colonizers of the island are believed to be former subjects of fallen Korean kingdom Baekje during the late 7th century.) from the article of Tsushima province, and for a time the content of Tsushima province was shared with Tsushima Islands, after my decision to move the page. However, if you notice from the history of Tsushima province, the paragraph was originally typed by User:Kjrocker, not by me. Under pressure from User:Mel Etitis, I had to further elaborate on my points.

Anyway, for your information, I have found Korean resources concerning on Tsushima-Baekje connections. Have a look at these links.

1. http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?f=j_s&n=200407220321 2 .http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/source/ka-3.htm 3. http://www.sgt.co.kr/Service5/ShellView.asp?TreeID=1052&DataID=200504081855000333 4. http://www.naeil.com/weeklynaeil/naeil/news/327/32728.htm 5. http://www.dapsa.co.kr/?menu=daemado 6. http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062901/K=%EB%8C%80%EB%A7%88%EB%8F%84+%EB%B0%B1%EC%A0%9C/v=2/SID=w/l=CP/SIG=1206odudo/EXP=1116579076/*-http%3A//kr.blog.yahoo.com/suby911/959326.html 7. http://www.megapass.co.kr/~hsg1000/a190d-1.htm

Tan 19:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand Korean so would you please point out the very text which describe about the historical evidence of Baekje refgees at Tsushima and also please summarize it in English as I did from Nihonshoki? Thank you in advance. --Corruptresearcher 11:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked User:Kjrocker's edit [38] just now. His expression was not favorable for Wikipedia because he did not mention "who believes", as your expression in Tsushima Islands. This is one of the reasons why his expression was deleted, I believe. If you want to mention about the Tsushima-Baekje connection in the article, you should make clear 5W1H for it. --Corruptresearcher 11:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I afraid that I could understand little Korean, and all I understood was that Tsushima Baekje did have some sort of connections. I would recommend if you can find a Korean and help me in translating some of the content concerning about Baekje, so that I can understand better what they are saying about.

Also, I have already elaborated on the point of Baekje in my paragraph that I have typed and show you just now. I hope that you no objections about having it back up again.

Tan 20:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have objections on your expression. I cannot understand why can you discuss this issue without knowledge of Japanese nor Korean. I was supprised that you could understand only little Korean. Why did you show us Korean source then? How did you understand the Baekje refgees at Tsushima is true? Now I am understanding why everyone wants to block you. If you do not change your stance, I will support to block you. --Corruptresearcher 13:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Specific problems include what is meant by "downfall", and who it is that believes "many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century" — the vague passive is, as has been repeated ad nauseam not good enough. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You have shown mistakes in your statement that I do not know Japanese. To be honest, I can understand a smattering of Japanese and Korean, having the ability to comprehend a passage roughly, but not amounting to translations. I found the sources (partially by coincidence) by typing the Korean words "Baekje" and "Daemado" getting them in cached versions, and seek for these two phrases that coincides in the same page.

Anyway, in the donga page, I think that the following

• 대마도의 원주인은 백제계 유민?

리아스식 해안으로 둘러싸여 호수처럼 잔잔한 아사우(淺海)만은 요즘 한일 양국의 프로 낚시꾼들이 즐겨 찾는 유명한 낚시터이지만 오랜 기간 왜구의 소굴이었던 천혜의 요새다. 조선 태종 때 이종무 장군도 아사우만 일대에 한 달간 머물며 왜구를 소탕했다.

이 일대에는 667년에 백제 유민들이 나당연합군의 침공에 대비해 쌓은 백제식 산성인 ‘가나다노기’(金田城)가 있다. 백제와의 인연은 13세기 중엽까지 대마도를 지배했던 ‘아비류’(阿比留)씨 가문의 혈통에서도 더듬어볼 수 있다. ‘아비류’는 ‘아사달’ ‘아직기’ ‘아사녀’ ‘비류백제’ 등과 어원이 같은 백제 계통의 성씨인 것으로 추측되기 때문이다.

gives the answer to the Baekje connections. Meanwhile, (either you or me), seek help from a Korean wikipedian who is able to translate this text into English so that I can incoporate more content into the history section. In the meantime, I will not put it up again, until we find a translator.

Tan 00:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, can you please explain about your reverts? While you are reverting at the expense of reverting the good ones (I'm sure you can spot it out), I am begining to suspect that your reverts are caused by sentimental factors against me. If you can prove where I'm wrong, then show me at least one or two mistakes here. Otherwise, I see no reason in your mysterious reverts.

Tan 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because, as usual, you made a mess of the English. The very first edit was: "It was witnessed that Tsushima experiences an aging population." What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Well, aside from the peculiar passive, I imagine that you meant something like: "Tsushima has an aging population" — but the passive is the real problem.

You then deleted the section on Economics, and made a change from "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the". Leaving aside the spelling mistake, what was the point of this?

I've reinstated the two edits that seemd reasonable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, you told by yourself that you do not understand Japanese in the previous discussion. If now you say you can, it's OK. Anyway, please read history books, not the articles on the massmedia. I read the article on donga.com through a translation site. There were only guesses without evidence and a name of the researcher who proposed it. I know Korean massmedia is now proposing such groundless inference. I believe we should not edit Wikipedia based on the articles on massmedia because it always makes mistake (Japanese massmedia also do so). Imagin the Wikipedia article which include many expressions such as "Korean massmedia believes..." or "Japanese massmedia insists...". It is very awful. --Corruptresearcher 22:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Corruptresearcher:

I do not have any history books containing information saying anything about Tsushima, irrespective whether they are stating the history in the Korean or Japanese POV.

Can you please tell me the translator site you used to read the page (or using translation through other means)? If there is, does the translator you use has the Korean-English/Chinese feature?

It seems that you are too lazy to read the other links that I have provided. The donga page is not the only one stating the Baekje connections. See for yourself in [39], a tourism page talking about Daemado/Tsushima. I have also found the relavant excerpt to the answer:

金田成(금전성:가네다 죠) 한반도의 남부지방이 바라다 보이는 아소만(淺　灣)위 城山(죠우아마)에 위치한 한국식 상성. 663년 白江(하꾸우스키노애)전투를 끝으로 백제 부흥운동은 실패하고 백·왜 연합군과 유민들은일본열도로 건너갔다. 그러나 전쟁의 성격이 동아지중해 국제전적 성격 을 띄고 있었고, 이미 전쟁수행능력, 즉 해양능력이 성장하여 일본

열도는 나당연합군의 침입에 대비하여야 했다. 따라서 4년부터 방어체제 구축에 들어갔는데, 664년에 대마도·일기도 등에 防人(앞에서 지키는 전위부대)를 두는 등 방어체제를 구축하였다. 그리고 65년에는 큐슈에, 667년에는 대마도 金田成,나라의 高安城(다끼야스죠우)등을 쌓았다. 한국식 산성을 쌓은 사람들은 장군 憶禮福留등 백제 유민들이다. 일본열도내의 한국식 산성들은 당시 유민들의 주도하에 축성된 것이다.

To Mel:

It seems that your "blunt" wits have made people getting irritated, I'm afraid. I won't mind having the old and aging population.. sentence omitted, for it seems very strange to me as well. Anyway, I'm just trying to incoporate content from Nanshu's [40] partially having the reason to please him.

Dear Professor, I'm extremely astonished that you do not consider this as an English mistake, and that maybe partially the factor for your chronic everts on Zanskar. Do you realise, that "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the" is merely not only improving the English in the sense that using flowery and dynamic words will enhance the mood of the article, but also the way of expression so as not to confuse people? If you say made it part of, can incoporation of a foreign land into another country's land be said made it part of? The meaning may almost be the same, but if you say made it part of, it is a form of expression that can only be used for colloquial daily life expressions. In the case of political factors, acrolectal english should be used instead.

Neither do I see any fault with having an economy section. Like the Liancourt Rocks section, Tsushima should also have an economy section, even it meant to be short. I will not tolerate on holding back on any objecions.

Tan 11:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Nanshu's statement

I read the pages you listed, but I cannot find evidences that support your claim:

During the downfall of the Baekje kingdom, many fled to Japan, and it is believed that many of the Baekje people and aristocrats found refuge in Tsushima, exerting political control over the island during the late 7th century.

Cite primary sources such as Nihonshoki, Shoku Nihongi and Samguk Sagi. It is the best and easiest way to ground your claims. --Nanshu 06:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Mr Tan tries to mix things up with the vague term "connection". I demand evidences that support Baekje people

1. found refuge in Tsushima,
2. exerting political control over the island

during the late 7th century. --Nanshu 06:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I explain your false logic about Kaneda Castle.

Quote from 日本書紀卷第二十七 天智天皇六年

是月[十一月]、築倭國高安城・讃岐國山田郡屋嶋城・對馬國金田城。

This is all we can find in literature. Archeological research suggests that it is classified into what archeologists call 朝鮮式山城 (see Mizuno Seiichi 水野清一, etc: Tsushima--Genkai ni okeru zettō, Tsushima no kōkogaku teki chōsa 対馬 : 玄海における絶島,対馬の考古学的調査, Tōa Kōko Gakkai 東亜考古学会, 1953), but we cannot determine from historical sources who constructed this castle.

The article you cited misunderstands about 憶禮福留. Quote from 日本書紀卷第二十七 天智天皇三年

秋八月、遣達率答[火本]春初、築城於長門國。遣憶禮福留・達率四比福夫於筑紫國、築大野及椽二城。

He was sent to construct Ōno and Kii Castles. We can find no relationship between Kaneda Castle and him.

It seems that you misunderstand that they

• came directly from Baekje, and
• resided there.

By whom and from where were they sent [遣]? The imperial court of Japan sent them possibly from the capital region. And they seems to get back after their duty. Nihonshoki proves that 答[火本]春初 stayed in the court in 天智十年 (671). --Nanshu 06:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not especially good at japanese history, but I must say history part written by Mr Tan is incorrect. I think he is too dependent on unreliable website articles, particulary korean patriotic propaganda. --Ypacaraí June 29, 2005 22:50 (UTC)

References

Request for Comment on Section Title

• Request for Comment:
  • This morning I added two book references under Reference Heading, since changed to Additonal Reading.
  • The update/add that I did was on the socio-political background of the recent history of the Islands. Which Heading is more appropo - my references do indeed NOT deal with Tsushima specifically, BUT DO deal with the political-economic climate at the time in chapter length detail.
  • At this time, I also acted boldly and changed the Heading from Apologies, which is of NARROW UTILITY Fabartus 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General topics

Major edits

Please everyone, given the problems on this article, could you discuss major edits before making them? Nanshu, deleting the infobox, and changing the summary definitely come into that category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Abandon the ignore-comments-not-placed-at-the-bottom policy and see Talk:Tsushima Island#Large-scale edit. --Nanshu 10:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is simple good manners to place your reasons for edits where people can see them, and not to expect other editors to trawl through a long and often convoluted Talk page in order to find the places where you argued for the different bits of your position. When I did follow your link, in fact, I discovered only a set of further links to other places, and some un-Wikipedia comments about me not editing articles on subjects in which I'm not expert. It's not necessary to be expert ina subject in order to understand Wikipedia policy and to see when it's not being complied with. If you don't think that your edits are important enough to warrant you making the effort to place your arguments for them here so that they can be assessed by your fellow editors, then why should we consider them important enough to stay? I'm not convinced by those arguments you've given, especially as some of them involve waving your hand vaguely at documents in Japanese which you can't be bothered to translate.

Note, incidentally, that you can't justify a unilateral edit on the basis of an MoS Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessary to be expert ina subject in order to understand Wikipedia policy and to see when it's not being complied with.

Huh? Wikipedia policy? What are you talking about? I said we have to have minimum necessary knowledge about the topic to join discussion. We are not expected to teach ABC.

Now, as I made clear references to current issues, you cannot excuse yourself for reverts without discussion.

P.S. I always welcome your comments on my remarks, but unless you specify the part you question, they are just personal attacks against me. --Nanshu 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

How to discuss

I spent more than two years in English Wikipedia, but I've never seen such a dishonest guy as Mel Etitis. He archived discussions in which the last comment was added just ten minutes before! It is clear that by my repeated notices he knew that discussions are in progress there. (otherwise he cannot handle MediaWiki properly. So I recommend him to desysop himself.) This means that he intentionally tried to force out discussions that are not presented as he like.

I don't see why he is so reluctant to admit this theme goes beyond his ability. Whitewashing my comments may be the only way to avoid to have his pride hurt. --Nanshu 05:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

What kind of gibberish is this?

"Tsushima experiences an aging population."

How in the world can this be a proper sentence? JMBell° 10:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."
2. I didn't notice that someone had added a comment to a long-dead discussion. My experience is that such comments are rarely noticed by anyone. Still, I apologise for my error; anyone who thinks that a discussion was wrongly archived is at liberty to bring it back; that would be more useful than using it as an excuse to attack a fellow editor. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the article

I see that the article is now filled with what's little more than gibberish. The very first sentence: "The Tsushima Island (対馬島 Tsushima-tō, or simply called Tsushima) is a island lying in the Tsushima Strait, between the Japanese island of Kyushu and the Korean Peninsula." has at least three obvious grammatical mistakes, not to mention the fact that it contradicts the article's title. I don't see any way round this but to revert the whole thing and ask people to make their edits collaboratively. I and others have spent considerable time copyediting this article, and taking it from poor to decent English. Although Mr Tan is the main culprit, Nanshu seems to have adopted his approach. I've just about given up on the former, but if the latter would calm down, perhaps we could improve the article collaboratively, instead of insisting on this edit-war approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Begun, the Edit War has." - Wikimaster Yedit

Honestly, I don't see the point in unleashing all your annoyance on your co-editors when that will only lead to an uncooperative atmosphere. I've said this before, and I don't want to say it again - Mel and Nanshu, put your personal arguments aside and don't find fault with the other's work or we will NEVER get finished!!! JMBell° 15:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what that was about. My comments had nothing to do with a personal disagreement, but arose purely out of the sudden transformation of a reasonably clear article in correct English to an almighty mess, with broken syntax, internal contradictions, etc. If anything, my comments concerning Nanshu offered the hand of collaboration instead of indivdualistic edit-warring. I still hope that Nanshu will stop personally attacking me (as he has done in a number of places, accusing me of dishonesty, etc.), and start co-operating on editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Nanshu has also been removing relavant information, despite the fact that this particular talk page has most, if not all, the answers to his quests. Even the sources are stated. Hopefully he will not revert anymore into the original old state. Nanshu, I will access the questions to you later.

Tan 00:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My Edits

I do not understand why Prof. Mel Etitis has

• Reinstating
  • The blog that Ypacarai removed (added by an annoyomous user)which has no relation to the Tsushima Islands topic
  • The name of the strait: Korea or Tsushima? I feel that Korea, rather than Tsushima, is better. Since the Tsushima Islands are stuck between the Western and Eastern Channel (also known as Tsushima Strait, Korea strait should be the appropriate name used, unless you mean to say that even the Western channel, which the northern part of Tsushima faces to, is also known as Tsushima strait.
  • After explaining the grammatical errors in Talk:Tsushima Island#Baekje connections? Mel Etitis still persistently reverted the edits, without giving any reasons in the first place why this is bad, good, etc

Tan 19:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. The blog was tucked into a string of edits; when the page is unprotected, we can remove it if necessary.
2. Your musings on the name of the strait sound like personal research again; do you have a reputable and neutral source that supports your contention?
3. Your 'explanation' of the problems was disputed by more than one editor, and your final comments were incomprehensible in places, contained a personal attack, made a number of claims about English style that don't stand scrutiny, repeated and re-repeated the misspelling of "incorporated", and included your usual arrogant statements of what you would or would not tolerate:

   "To Mel:

1. "It seems that your "blunt" wits have made people getting irritated, I'm afraid. I won't mind having the old and aging population.. sentence omitted, for it seems very strange to me as well. Anyway, I'm just trying to incoporate content from Nanshu's [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsushima_Islands&oldid=14017622) partially having the reason to please him.

1. "Dear Professor, I'm extremely astonished that you do not consider this as an English mistake, and that maybe partially the factor for your chronic everts on Zanskar. Do you realise, that "and made it part of" to "incoporating the islands into the" is merely not only improving the English in the sense that using flowery and dynamic words will enhance the mood of the article, but also the way of expression so as not to confuse people? If you say made it part of, can incoporation of a foreign land into another country's land be said made it part of? The meaning may almost be the same, but if you say made it part of, it is a form of expression that can only be used for colloquial daily life expressions. In the case of political factors, acrolectal english should be used instead.

1. "Neither do I see any fault with having an economy section. Like the Liancourt Rocks section, Tsushima should also have an economy section, even it meant to be short. I will not tolerate on holding back on any objecions."

1. I rest my case. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Which blog are you refering to?
2. For the Tsushima/Korea strait naming, I could only suggest an atlas for proof. Or better, check a few atlas, rather than a single one.
3. What do you don't comprehend? Where is the personal attack you are refering to? Tell me where.

There is little problem with my english styling. I have explained on the above text that you have cut and pasted. If you insist on where is my problem, tell me further. If you also insist incorporated is wrong, what is the correct spelling?

Tan 13:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Page Protected

Edit-warring is not good, ok? Cool down, take a walk in the park, sort yourselves out first, and look up editing 101. Then come back and do it right. :-) Kim Bruning 11:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources with brief info

[41] [42] [43] [44]

Sources with a lot of info

[45] [46]

Tan 19:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, hey, I can't read those written with Hangul at all. Even though I can see any of them are not reliable. those are only personal webpages.--Ypacaraí 11:53, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

No, they are news websites, not personal websites! News reports are often true, as they are reported from reliable historians who have done proper research. You can trust them, especially the donga-ilbo, for it is the name of a widely accepted newspaper, or newsletter in Korea. Too bad if you can't read them; I've provided to the best that I could. Tan 21:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"News reports are often true", therefore "You can trust them"? Even if this were good reasoning (which it clearly isn't), newspaper reports often get things right, but at least as often they get things wrong. In matters of fact, they oversimplify and often misunderstand detailed and careful research, and politicall they're often biased one way or another. The idea that an encylopædia should get its information from a newspaper rather than vice versa is astonishing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This also applies to some history books, even archaic ones as well! Yes, we can trust news reports written by newspaper organizations that are widely accepted, not any tom-tick-n-harry newspaper organizations. If you are so peculiar even about the content of widely accepted news reports, I doubt that you can even trust old history books; for news reports (though occasionally is biased to some extent) contain updated facts; old history books like Samguk Sagi may also be biased, say, if the person hides the terible secret of a certain emperor and thus omit the atrocitis that he has done? Thus news reports accepted by a large number should be accepted as well; in addition to the outdated researches of old history books. Tan 8:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC) I'd like to interject here (belatedly as I work through the history of this issue on June 18) we are working on an encyclopedia -- Web sources should be used to generate general research directions, not as definitive sources. Published sources with high editorial standards (not newscycle driven needs) like professional journals, official governmental sites of archieved PREVIOUSLY PRINTED materials, and books are reasonably good sources. Web sources are virtually all suspect, excepting again, those dupicating archieval materials like universitys posting said materials. It doesn't take a lot of extra time to follow up leads in a good library, but it is NECESSARY to proper scholarship and writing. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]]

Yes I may trust BBC or Reuters about such far east int'l problem, but never korean newspapers nor their websites. --Ypacaraí 01:36, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

You are too calculative. BBC or Reuters will rarely write reports on topics which concerns about minor geographical islands like Tsushima, for they consider it as too insignificant. If you say that you can not trust widely-accepted Korean sources, are you trying to say that Koreans cannot trust your Japanese news reports? To me, Asahi and donga are good enough; and many of my sources come from there. Your Japanese sources may be biased to the Japanese side; while Korean sources will be biased to the Korean side. If we accept information from both sides, the biasness can be moderated. If you are too calculative, you will achieve nothing; this is a piece of advise. Furthermore, many sources state about the Oei Invasion, not just one. Tan 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be so suspicious, Mr Tan. I did refer BBC and Reuters just as examples of reliable media and didn't intent to say you must search on those for backups of your opinion. Generally media of the countries concerned the dispute aren't reliable. So those korean news websites can't be reliable. --Ypacaraí 10:48, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

• So long a considerable amount of websites support this claim is allright; but I'm afraid that BBC and Reuters provide little sources on Tsushima, as I have tried and searched throughly. I did not get the information from a single source; in fact, I got it from many sites. For Yi Jong Mu, see the Oei Invasion (But it seems to be written according to the Japanese POV). Anyway, just open up your mind and tally with Korean and Japanese sources, so long you know that they do not say anything that Tsushima is Korean territory--then this is unreliable. If they are merely providing information, it is good enough to be trusted. Otherwise we will have very information on Tsushima if we constrict ourselves to tightly---just follow the guideline that Korean article says nothing that Tsushima belongs to South Korea will do.

After all, see the Liancourt Rocks as a matter of comparison--which side to believe? Tally the news sources of Takeshima/Dokdo with Japanese, American (and other neutral countries) and Korea. The difference in terms of historical info is not very different in terms of description.Tan 19:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

What is "Yi Jong Mu"? Name of korean person? However many source from korea may support your oppinion, they belong the country directry concerned the dispute. So in this case number of source doesn't matter. Please understand. About Liancourt Rocks, Japanese government proposed to commit the problem to Internacional Court of Justice but Korean government refused. Why? They know that They have no chance to win.--Ypacaraí 14:16, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Yi Jong-mu is a Korean general. I would not care about your complains, for you, a Japanese, seems to be very biased towards the Japanese POV. I'm not Korean, I'm Singaporean. In fact, how do you know that Korea will lose in the ICJ (International Court of Justice) on Takeshima? In fact, I'm confused about the background of Takeshima, for Korean and Japanese sources say different things, but it is up to your own judgement to neutralise the dispute by fusing the information from both sides, and this is what I'm trying to do on Tsushima. To me, any sources that are accepted by many, irrespective whether it is Donga (Korean), or Asahi (Japanese), I accept both.

Since you so peculiar about Korean sources, can Japanese sources be trusted, for like Tsushima Islands, Takeshima has Japanese sources? Are they reliable then? Please answer me. I"ll rest my case.Tan 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

When did I say japanese media are reliable? Never. I'm telling you your claim about tsushima is nonsense and requesting to show me reliable sources. Also we are discussing about Tsushima and not Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks Btw if you aren't a korean, why do you understand and refer korean media?.

After all, I participated and voted in the dispute on title of the article but never claimed about belonging of the islands. --Ypacaraí

Get to the point here. Any sources, irrespective of Korean or Japanese sorces (so long they are widely accepted), are reliable enough. The sources above are reliable enough. Can't you understand? Check out Japanese sources as well on Tsushima. I have already told you that western media rarely gave information about Tsushima! This article must have sources from Korean and Japanese sources as well (If you are bothered to find out). Tan 15:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Again? Don't refer to korean media (nor Japanese ones) any more. Try to find among media of neutral countries e.g. singapore, philippines or Australia. --Ypacaraí 08:02, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Yes, journalists always get facts wrong. Hey, I'm a journalist, so I guess I can make fun of myself!.84.154.69.45

Yes, but don't feel that you have to — there are plenty of people who are willing to do it for you... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's advice (note spelling) would be more helpful if we knew what on Earth he meant by "calculative". (Note, incidentally, that it's "Tom, Dick, and Harry" — and his claims about newspapers don't stand up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

fabartus copyGrouped the above Section into something those of us trying to catch up can assimulate. Can't say the name calling and comments on another users command of the language were helpful or professional. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 22:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Do not revert

Please do not revert the changes, for I have done proper ammendments. Scan the talk page first, for the answers of my reasons of the edits all come from there. If still in doubt, feel free to raise your objections, but let me answer them first before reverting, so as to prevent confusion.

Tan 19:07, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

You pestered admins to unprotect the page because there were no more disputes, and as soon as the protection was lifted you dived in with a series of edits, many of which are very controversial. That's not acceptable. I'll ask User:SlimVirgin to replace the protection until you've learnt to behave. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem not to have understood the point. I made the necessary edits, and all the answers are found in the talk page itself. Please, ask me, what are your doubts and questions. I do not want you to hold back on your doubts; for your doubts are my doubts, and to me, if a person does not answer my replies, I have to assume that he agrees on my point; and this is where you made my life very difficult when you twist your point here and there. Can you please get straight to the point? Otherwise, the page will have to be unprotected and reverted if you persist in such deviant behaviour, or not answeing questions exceeding three days.

Tan 23:11, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

1. Much of the time I (and other editors) are simply unable to understand your messages (as indeed I don't understand the last part of what you say above), and at other times are unwilling to go over the same old ground again and again.
2. Your edits were objected to by a number of editors and many of them (as usual) turned good English into bad. When you add uncontroversial new information, other editors are happy simply to clean up your English and leave the information (as I did today at Lee Kuan Yew). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just only because of correcting english at the expense of obilterating my contributions? Why did you do that? This is vandalism. I'm also unwilling to revert your edits that you have done on me for no good reason. [47]
• Define and highlight all the points on where I turned english into bad english. I do not welcome explicit explanations without definitions.

Tan 23:11, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

I have done this, in detail, on numerous occasions, and you've never responded. I don't intend to waste my time doing it again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see where I did not respond to your messages. It would be appreciating if you show me where are the unresponded messages, and I will be very keen to reply on your questions now. However, you never replied any of my questions either.

• Fine, if you are so reluctant even to give a proper explanation on this issue. This comes to a point that you must not revert my edits, for you did not explain why, but you can copyedit. Simple as that.

Tan 01:27, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No more comments? Somebody unblock the page and revert to my last edit. Mel has not replied, so I have to assume that he agrees on my point.

Tan 02:49, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that you think that I have nothing to do but respond to your demands, but believe it or not it's possible not to answer for an hour or so wihtout having left the debate. On Talk:Zanskar and elsewhere I have, in the past, responded to your demands for detailed explanations as to where your English was poor (this was when you were still insulting other people for their English, and claiming that yours was perfect). In every case, your response was to ignore what I said, and to carry on insisting that you were right and everyone else wrong. You've done the saem to others, as the RfC against you brings out. Not one person tried to defend you; every editor who contributed agreed that your behaviour was unacceptabele — and still you behave in the same way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did give detailed explanations, but upon me explaining on my behalf of the explanations, you did not argue back, in fact, changing the topic and threatening arbitration in Talk:Zanskar.

All right, let's come to my boasting of my english. Around two to three months agp, I "acknowledged" that my English was perfect. However, didn't you see me apologising time and again for this mistake? My foresight is wrong. Yes, my English may not be the best, as I have stated time and again, especially in Talk:Lee Kuan Yew. But that doesn't warrant you to do reverts at the expense of the contribution of my new content, just because by saying that my English is not good! Worse, you did that in a dash-around manner without explaning why, and I have to prompt you to explain, and this is suspicious behaviour. Even when I ask you, many a times you refuse to provide me with the things that will clarify my doubts. One minute per-revert? [48] And leaving me in a state holding plenty of doubts? This is ridiculous!

The problem that lies with me is that I have yet to shed light on your all your bad edits and poor attitude against me. Coming back to this case; many a times you have refused to ask questions, and I'm here, frankly, asking what doubts you have in your mind. Look here, I do not want to waste time quarrelling and fighting with a person like you. And deviating away topics like this is not a proper behaviour for a wikipedian. So what even I spent one hour discussing with you? You are very impatient and want to do things at your accord, by quitting discussions halfway! This makes me assume that you have agree on my point.

I'm asking you one last time, please ask me if you have any doubts on my new edits. Do not deviate the topic to another topic. If not, I will assume that you have agreed on my content, and you may do whatever copyediting as you wish.

For your convinence, most, if not all, I assume, that the pending questions of yours are found at this very talk page.

tan 11:12, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No questons? Good. I"ll ask for an unprotection soon and then go back to the old version. Even then, the article is open to copyediting and contribution of new content. If in doubt, feel free to look up the talk page or ask questions. Thanks. tan 21:27, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

No, you won't. In fact your attitude is, if anything, getting worse — you're becoming more instead of less arrogant in your dealings with me and others. Until you give reasons for your changes, especially the grammatical ones, they shouldn't be made. See above for numerous objections to what you want to do. The onus is on you to defend your proposals. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I show you some of my reasons onmy edits first:

• For the Korea Strait and grammar, see [49]. I have already explained "incoporated" is a better word to replace the phrase "made it part of", for the former stresses political significance.
• For the Kaneda castle, see [50] on its history of Korean evidence.
• Why did you rever the change on ko:쓰시마 섬 back to ko:대마도? The former is a redirect!

Feel free to ask me if you have any more doubts. I have already clarified your doubts, and unless you have anymore objections, I see no problem in unprotecting the page.

Tan 23:28, 4 June 2005 (UTC)

1. Even if you had spelt "incorporated" properly, it's not at all clear that it's better than "made it part of"; there is no difference between them in terms of political significance.
2. What you had written was: "Other features include the influence of Korean architecture of the Kaneda Castle." It wasn't clear what features you were referring to, and the grammar was obscure. Having read the source, it now seems that you meant to say something like: "Korean influence can also be found in the architecture of Kaneda Castle."
3. "the So clan, exerted control over these islands, who governed Tsushima until the late 15th century" reads as though it's the islands who governed Tsushima; what was there (to which I reverted) makes sense, where your "correction" doesn't.
4. It's unclear what the status of a "Municipal Government" is; "city" is much clearer.
5. Much of the rest of what you added was oddly phrased at best (for example, "Tsushima experiences a subtropical climate, contributing to its influence of the monsoon winds"); while it might be replaced, it will need to be put into clear, correct English.
6. When the protection is lifted, if you're prepared to collaborate instead of rushing in and making changes, the article might improve. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration? Of course. My edits were not intentional to introduce vandalism. And Masan is often refered as Municipal, see [51] for example. I will revert the changes, and do the appropriate re-ammendments from there you stated. I do not tolerate violent reverts from you, but copyediting is ok. Incorporated a better word than a phrase, for a word is better than a phrase. Use advance English if possible.

tan 00:06, 5 June 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that you've changed neither your fractured English nor your willingness to lecture other editors on their use of English. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can't I have a breathing space concerning the freedom of speech? Please make yourself understood on the above descriptions or ask me if you don't. I do not want you holding back your doubts anymore.

Mr Tan 11:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)tan

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather with the way you like to lecture others on grammar. If you were a professor, I'd understand, but you're not, so let the good ol' Professor do the lecturing around here, okay? Listen to my advice, for Heaven's sake, and you'll be better off, I assure you. Problem is, what goes in one ear goes out the other. Earplugs won't prevent our words from escaping. JMBell° 12:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But nobody is totally imperfect, or perfect. We can be peers, or foes, if Mel decides. In my decision, using a word "incorporate" would be better to replace a phrase "made it part of". I am not very good at explaining in my opinion, I am more inclined to the sixth sense. I understand his motives, but he still could not get me clear why this is not appropriate. To me, the English teacher says that usage of words to replace phrases are better, provided if the change do not alter the phrase. I sincerely want a thorough explanation on your/his POV if you say I'm wrong, but he didn't do so clearly.

Mr Tan 15:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan

Unprotected

As discussion seems to have dried up, I have unprotected this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I am going to place the previous version of mine into this article, along with some ammendments. The purpose of this is merely adding information, and especially in retrospect to User:Mel Etitis, I would gladly appreciate if you would stop reverting and come straight to the point if you still have doubts in your mind. I would also be very pleased if anybody have doubts and come straight to me and ask his or her questions. Thanks.

Also, please feel free to add information or copyedit if anybody wishes to.

Mr Tan 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted it, yet again. All the old problems were there, including both disputed changes and spelling mistakes that have been pointed out ("Korea Strait", the misspelling of "incoporate"). In other words, as soon as protection is lifted, you ignore everything that has been said on this page, and make all your changes again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not like reverts, for it can really be confusing. Can you please specify the problem of the "Korea Strait" and list out your other problems? If you are trying to mean that there is a defect in the spelling, just look up the page itself--Korea Strait, not Korea Straits. If you are doubtful why I added "Korea" and not "Tsushima", please check the atlas and the information in Korea Strait to analyse my reason.

I will never know where are your problems if you do not tell me, but I will do ammendments to those you highlighted. Anyway, some of the questions which I believe that may solve the problem is on this very talk page. I'm happy and willing to attend to all your doubts but not so with immediate reverts. I'm sorry to say that, but that is where I find it offensive. Thanks.

Mr Tan 11:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit, which you marked as minor, and whose edit summary was "tidying". This was actually a substantial edit, much of which had already been discussed (and opposed) here. In other words, your claim that it was minor and merely tidying ws a lie. Don't do that again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologise--I am a bit sleepy now, and forgive me of my error.

Mr Tan 13:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert first. Please sort things out first, and I do not want immediate reverts. And please ask questions if you really have to---I see no reason in reverting the economy section at all. Besides you, I do not find any other opposition parties in contrast to my introduction of new facts.

Mr Tan 12:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have again made extensive edits, including controversial ones, and labelled your edit minor. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For Mel Etitis

I do not like reverts, for it can really be confusing. Can you please specify the problem of the "Korea Strait" and list out your other problems? If you are trying to mean that there is a defect in the spelling, just look up the page itself--Korea Strait, not Korea Straits. If you are doubtful why I added "Korea" and not "Tsushima", please check the atlas and the information in Korea Strait to analyse my reason.

I will never know where are your problems if you do not tell me, but I will do ammendments to those you highlighted. Anyway, some of the questions which I believe that may solve the problem is on this very talk page. I'm happy and willing to attend to all your doubts but not so with immediate reverts, and things can get very confusing and complicated. I'm sorry to say that, but that is where I find it offensive. Thanks.

Mr Tan 12:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy if only Mel Etitis can stop his habit of reverting immediately after posting his messages. This is where he has infurated me, and I hope that he can only revert at least ten to twelve hours of posting his last message, for things can go head-wire if he goes on like this.

Mr Tan 13:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etits:"You have again made extensive edits, including controversial ones, and labelled your edit minor. "

Look here, I cannot see the point of you saying "controversial" again and again; unless you get to the point here by listing your doubts and questions, I cannot just let you revert and revert again. I have already made my point here, but you couldn't just seem to understand.

And if you keep doing this, getting more and more ignorant like this with your unelaborated reverts; I may have to list you on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress.

Nor did I label my edit as minor, just go and check the history. I have already made my point on my revert.

Mr Tan 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I have checked, and I've also read Tsushima Strait. The only reason that I can see for your change is political, not geographical. Would you explain here why you made the change, not simply wave your hand vaguely at other articles and tell us to work it out for ourselves?
2. Your attitude at the moment seems to be that you'll simply make the same wholesale edit repeatedly, changing parts of it once the rel;evant mistakes have been pointed out at least two or three times. That's not a productive, nor a collaborative approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the Korea Strait and this sentence:"The strait has a depth of about 90 metres and is split by the Tsushima Islands. While the eastern channel of the Korea Strait is also referred to as Tsushima Strait, the West Channel is simply refered as the Korea Strait." If you use Tsushima, and not Korea Strait, for Tsushima Islands are wedged between the Eastern and Western channels of the Korea Strait. If you put Tsushima Strait, it solely refers to the eastern channel. Then how about the Western Channel?

Nor I see what's the big deal in pointing mistakes repeatedly. What's the big deal about it? I like it, for it clarifies one's doubts better!

And all the discussion at [52] is stalled without a clear-cut conclusion; so I have to take it that you have understood, since you did not post anymore messages in contrast to those doubts. Is that all the questions you want to ask?

Mr Tan 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And please be helpful by not posting your discussion together with reverting. I have already made my point clear in this very section here. Opinions?

Mr Tan 15:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already held out for several hours, waiting for Mel's question. Looking at the situation, I know Mel Etitis is very sure not going to post his comments concerning his doubts if he does not post one within a few hours anytime between 10:00-22:00 (UTC) in accordance to my observation of his editing behaviorial traits.

I am reverting now, but please do not counter-revert and then ask at the same time, especially for Mel Etitis. And this is making the problem from bad to worse.

Do feel free to do ammendments, contriubte or copyedit if anybody wishes so. Please list out your doubts and drop a comment on my talk or here if anybody objects to the new factual edits or doubts. Thanks.

Mr Tan 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objections to Mr Tan's edits

If anybody who insists on plain reverts without making his explanations (clearly), I should see no proper reason in my new introduction of edits [53].

Again, if anybody who has objections, please state so, preferably in the form of a list here. If there is nobody placing his objections, or doubts here, I will revert in three days' time. All I need is attention and full co-operation. Although no rush is needed, the matter cannot remain stagnant. Thanks.

Mr Tan 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, I am aware of the objections that Mel Etitis posted on [54]. I suspect that the main factor is the word "incorporated". I have made an attempt to change the spelling, but the changing from "made it part of" to "incorporated" in one of the sentences, but I cannot see why Mel objected to this change. The Korea Strait, on the other hand, I have already explained in [55], but so far, Mel has not posted any objections. I really find him increasingly mysterious.

Mr Tan 11:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Messages by JMBell

If waiting for response, please leave page in original version, i.e. version used before editing was started. Is to prevent confusion by othor editors and readors. Thank yo. ring a bell? 19:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How long can I wait? I have a bad viewpoint on Mel Etitis; He has the tendency of freezing discussions in midway. And many a times I can neither go up nor down, so the best is to have a quick response, or drop by a message that he will respond later. I"ll wait for three days--hopefully he will respond, before I revert. Opinions?

Mr Tan 02:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When will this be over? Mr Tan only leave trash and Mel Etitis cannot deal with the content. Bring the unproductive conflict to a quick end first, please. --Nanshu 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Righto. There is more garbage than users to clean it up, and so the litterbug must be brought to justice! But he will not listen! JMBell° 12:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not treat me as if I'm dirt. I'm not a litterbug, and I'm here to contribute information. I do not tolerate people using vulgaraties. If you really object, explain why, but you all didn't! This is why I cannot understand.

Mr Tan 00:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, am I treating this guy like dirt? Did I even come close? I really think he should reread everything we wrote to him - he seems to have forgotten all our objections! This I cannot understand. JMBell° 12:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"ll reread everything–just please do not use crude language. Thanks. Mr Tan 12:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan's comment

Did you look at my final reply? Also, did you tabulate the differences between the Korean and Japanese sources? For the economy, I see no reason in why Mel Etitis reverted; see [56]. I had corrected it, and use data from that source.

What are my misunderstandings on the Oei Invasion? Check Korean sources to tabulat your facts.

See ""Between 1895 and 1904, the Japanese navy blasted a cut through an isthmus, perhaps one or two kilometers wide, on the eastern side of island between the great Aso^ Bay and the Japan Strait, not only dividing the land mass into two islands but also advancing their purpose, which was to be able to rapidly move warships from the straits of Korea (between Korea and Tsushima) into the straits of Japan (between Tsushima and Japan). of the [57] for the Island(s). I want to include this fact, but I fear Mel Etitis.

Mr Tan 11:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan

• post objections here.

Mr Tan 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zonath's comment

You asked for a couple tips about the Tsushima Island article, which I found strange, considering I have not been active in maintaining that article for a couple months, so am a bit out-of-date as far as the edit history goes. Concerning the Korea Strait issue: The information in the Wiki article on the strait would certainly go towards placing the islands within the Korea Strait -- I would look for a difinitive source (such as the UN) one way or the other. You might just write that the island lies between the Korea Strait and the Tsushima Strait, since it basically acts as a divider between the two. As for the island/islands thing: I am not going to step into this one, much less unilaterally changing the name of the article when there is still an active discussion going on about that very issue. Not that I'm overly concerned by a very minor naming issue. Korean culture on the island: A gloss of this with references would probably be more useful (and more encyclopedic), since we don't really need to have every single instance of Korean influence on the islands listed. I would personally just mention somewhere in the culture section that the culture of the islands contains some Korean influences (perhaps even to a greater level than Japan as a whole) due to the closeness of the island to Korea. However, this is already a very large article on a very small island/group of islands, and adding every Korean influence on the island (like signposts in Korean) does not lend much to its readability. Anyhow, I'm staying out of this one, since I value my sanity a bit too much.

Zonath 01:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

Found the definition of incorporated in [58]. I apologise for trouble created. I think that made it part of, the original phrase, is better. I hope that Mel Etitis will not revert anymore, for I believe that this is the source of his reverts. Also, if anybody has objections in contrast to the content, feel free to post your objections here. On the other hand, I have made the statement of the location of the Tsushima Islands (with advice from User:Zonath in a way that I hope it will suit everyone.

Mr Tan 05:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

I think this page needs to be refactored. --Nanshu 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to replace this page with PlanA. Any comment? --Nanshu 02:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do it in accordance to date arrangements. Thanks.Mr Tan 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Nanshu 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable sources, please!

Mr Tan, bring verifiable sources, or your edits will get reverted. Here verifiable sources means books and webpages that are themselves primary sources or cite them with critical analysis. A bunch of trashy webpages bring nothing. Since we cannot check their accuracy, they only cause futile labelling, "reliable," "unreliable," etc.

One may fear that demanding verifiable sources for everything can be a kind of DoS attack that imposes extra works on editors. So I demonstrated with an example that we cannot trust Mr Tan's edits without verifiable sources [59]. Based on websites that lack references to historical sources, Mr Tan presented an absurd argument. The burden of proof was on Mr Tan, but I proved with historical sources that his argument was wrong. But he still believe there are so-called "Korean sources" that actually don't exist. --Nanshu 06:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, I have already explained why the Korean name "Daemado" should not be removed in retrospect to Taiwan with the Portuguese Formosa. I do not know how many people receive this message, but I am getting more and more irritated at such behaviour, mainly because people who revert seem to be very deaf at the message.

I shall not revert for sometime, until I did not reveive any comments for a reasonable period of time. Also, I cannot understand your wholesale changes--all the sources are in this talk page itself. However, if you want the sources so badly, but you are a bit too lazy to find, I shall present some of them again, notably the Economy section, which comes from here [60].I shall provide two other Korean sources which I think it is useful and reliable: [61], [62], but the time constraint prompted me not to give more, but I can do so if you are willing to find me. Mr Tan 07:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because you've given your reasons doesn't mean that people have to accept them. You seem to think that all you have to do is give your orders, and the rest of us will fall in line; it doesn't work that way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand; but what I want is a definite conclusion on a specific discussion, but they if are not replying, so, how you want me to do if a person is not going to reply a message when you ask for opinions? It just so happens that you are one of them (in other discussions)

And you notice is Ypacarai is Japanese and perhaps Nanshu; Japanese traditionally tend to look down on Koreans and they despise Koreans, and it is natural for Japanese to reject Korean materials. The reverse applies to the attitude of The Koreans in contrast to Japanese. Mr Tan 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a conclusion — but you keep posting the same questions and demands, to which adequarte answers have been already been give.

As for the vaguely racist comments about Japanese and Korean editors, I'm not interested. I treat individuals as individuals, not as members of a race or culture. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, that is my statement from my observation of their behaviour; just a trival matter, feel free to post your comments if you have any objections or new opinions. Thanks. Mr Tan 14:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan behaved just as I feared. We are not talking about whether we believe in a religion or not. All we need is verifiable sources.

But it may be only waste of time to discuss with the guy who still believe a 19th century book has historical value for the study of ancient history. --Nanshu 07:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment: I do not ignore people's questions or comments unless necessary, even though their comment may not be at all be comprehensible to me. And that is the way I communicated with Mr Bartus. Mr Tan 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---