Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Requested moves to date

1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

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

New rules of conduct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The insistence on Opp2 is POV

See previous discussions Archive 16: !!,Archive 16: please ignore Opp2 and Archive 16: The insistence on Opp2 is POV

A map about treaty of San Francisco

See previous discussion Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16#A map about treaty of San Francisco

I did almost the same as the sentences from the SF treaty. Because hundreds of islands do not show in the SF treaty, they don't show in the map too. "Currently Japanese territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty" doesn't say in the SF treaty. All of extra inducement information is deleted. Then you are the same as saying that the SF treaty should be reverted. Please give logical and constructive opinion.--Opp2 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

you should go over, um, If it wasn't mentioned in the treaty, how can it actually written in the treaty? be real dude. I think you are about to trip over yourself this way o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

See previous discussion Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16#There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

Consistently poor use of English in this article

This article is written in the English language, and is part of the English Wikipedia, but many contributions are made by editors whose knowledge and understanding of that language is imperfect. Would there be any purpose in either of the following changes as a matter of policy: (a) deletion of all sections in Korean or Japanese characters (without regard to nationality or personal position of original editor), as these are not intelligible to English-speakers; although leaving quotations from either language which have been transliterated; and/or (b) correction of grammar and spelling in the article to reflect standard English usage?

Or would either of these be a waste of time given the incessant edit wars in this article? It would be pointless, for example, to correct the syntax of a sentence which is then edit-warred again and again and again on its substance.

Would regular editors like to vote on the adoption of either or both of these policies? Abstention might suggest a lack of willingness to engage with readers who are neither Japanese nor Korean.

And a happy New Year to one and all from Scotland! ariwara (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the correction of the grammar. However, I cannot do. The name and the author and book of quotation should be leaving original language. There is a possibility that the original becomes uncertain if these are translated. --Opp2 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Korea's view on San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Added to the Liancourt Rocks Page is the following interpretation of Korean Legal Scholar's view on the S.F Peace Treaty.

"..The rational interpretation of all the post-war instruments would lead to the conclusion that, unless any express decision provides otherwise, SCAPIN No.677 would take precedence. The Peace Treaty's mere omission of mentioning Tokdo as part of Korea's territory does not amount to the cession of Tokdo to Japan. And a fair interpretation would be that the islands mentioned in Article 2 of the Peace Treaty should be illustrative rather than enumerative given the large number of islands scattered around the Korean Peninsula..."

It comes from page 22 on the following article written by Korean legal expert Hee Kwon Park and Joeong In Rae.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-legal-doc5.pdf

Gettystein deleted it because of no citation, now it's cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added this citation to the contents. --W/mint^-Talk- 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

time series about SF treaty

• June 14, 1951: There is no change about article2 after this draft.
• September 8, 1951:Treaty of San Francisco was signed. (Text of treaty(No mention of the Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory and article 2) is fixed.)
• April 28, 1952:Treaty of San Francisco was effective.
• July 26, 1952: The United States protests to ROK based on the fixed text of treaty.

US knew that there was no mention of the Liancourt Rocks in the treaty[1] but protested against ROK. It contradicts the recognition of the United States when bringing the description about ”no mention” at the end of the part.[2] Do not disarrange the time series to emphasize "No mention" for Korean interpretation. In International Law, the text of treaty is fixed by the signature. --Opp2 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is not exceptional to mention only the territory with the change in a legal position in the treaty.[3] The territory of China and Japan did not mention in this treaty. Is there an eccentric scholar who says that Chinese and Japanese territory is unsettled according to this Treaty of Shimonoseki? Please stop induced description.--Opp2 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ICJ issue

Japan has protested since October 1954, and has repeatedly proposed arbitration action at the International Court of Justice, but South Korea has refused.

  but South Korea has refused.

It is too short and JPOV sentence. For NPOV edit, I attched Korea side reason. [4] For NPOV, Need both side opinion. do not delete it. Whatdamn (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Only the fact relevance was being written. The interpretation of Japan was not written. You want to push Only Korean interpretation? I cannot help pointing out the violation of Charter of the United Nations based on scholar's thesis as a Japanese interpretation if you don't erase it. In addition, the explanation of Korean interpretation is too tedious. Keep compact more. --Opp2 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

tediousの基準は何ですか? 日本側主張ばかりして, 韓国側主張を削除して, 非常に短く South Korea has refused と表現することは POVですが... Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Daehanjiji error ==Takeshi The first point to make about the Daehanjiji is that this is by and large a Japanese document. The author's epiloge states "All the records in this book refer to Japanese records and the "Donggukyeojiseungram" which is an old Korean document of Korean geography. This is identical to the position of the Daehanjiji and thus confirms that this publication literally copied Japanese Chosun Sealanes when defining the territorial boundaries of Korea. In the Japanese 1894 and 1899 editions of Chosun Sealanes, Liancourt Rocks (リアンコ－ルト列岩) (Dokdo Island) is postioned at 131 degrees - 55 mins East longitude while Chosun's territory at 124 degrees - 30 mins West and 130 degrees - 35 East longitude. However these positional errors do not mean that Japan excluded Dokdo Island from Chosun territory. The Japanese Navy put Dokdo under Chosun's East seashore in its Hwanyeon Sealanes in 1883 and again in Chosun's Sealanes published after 1894 editions again as under the European name of Liancourt Rocks (リアンコ－ルト列岩) When Japan wrote these sea lane records in 1894 and 1899, what they did was to make identical translations of the English Navy's "China Sea Directory" into Japanese and Korea in turn translated Japanese records to Korean to make the the Daehanjij. Both of the books Shinchan Chosun Chiriji and the Chosun Chiriji also coincide with Japan's Chosun Sealanes with regard to the positions of Korea's territory. It is quite clear that the publishers of the Daehanjiji sourced its informaton from Japanese maps and documents some of which having positional errors. Below is the 1907 edition of the New Daehanjiji. On page 44 regarding North Kyeongsan Province in Volume 2 of its second edition , Usando is introduced as Ulleungdo's sister island and it states "Usando is Southeast of that island Ulleungdo" This record as well as these are clear evidence that Usando does not refer to neither Jukdo Islet nor Gwaneumdo Islet as both of these are in northeastern positions. This also shows Korea did not consider Usando (Dokdo) as outside its territory when writing this publication . http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-daehanjiji.html

1. In 19 century, Korean do not have well technology for latitude, longitude measurement.

2. Daehanjiji copied from Japanese made document. (also copied Japanese document error)

3. However, Contents of Daehanjiji writed about Usando(Lincourt Rocks)'s existence.

Whatdamn (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research. Your source is POOR(a personal site and personal interpretation). When the source with reliability is not presented, it will be deleted. In addition, the explanation of Korean interpretation is too tedious. Keep compact more. --Opp2 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

あなたが編集したことを見てください. orがないのか? 例えば '三国時代の独島が于山国の領土ではない' という文章は original research ではないですか? Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, even if it is a mistake, it becomes effective in International Law when the map is accepted by government. Let's study the judicial precedent of Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia vs. Thailand).--Opp2 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

国際法で古地図が証拠能力を持つという話は初耳ですね. 私も研究をしたんですが, 初耳な理論だ. ソースお願いします. 当時 19 世紀, 近代化をしないで, 鎖国政策で西洋文物の流入を国策で阻んだ, 朝鮮人が緯度, 硬度を測定(西洋の技術)する技術を持ったということは不可能で, 著者が確かにしたことのように和本を引き写したと序文に確かに明示しています. それにもかかわらず 'Usando'が鬱陵島の東南の方にあるというのを明示しているので, 大韓支持が違うことはただ緯度硬度だけです. Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit concerning Daehan Jeondo[5]
"Daehan Jeondo" was published by Korean government(Korea's Ministry of Education). Therefore, the reason for your edit is irrelevant. Your edit will be riverted. In addition, "daehanjiji" was given official approval by the Korean government. And The forward of the book was written by Lee Gyu-hwan , who was the director of the editorial office for Korea's Ministry of Education at the time.--Opp2 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Daehanjiji, Daehanjeondo 韓国政府が発行したという証拠を提示してください.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DaehanJeondo.jpg even 'Daehan jeondo' mentioned Usando's existence.

daehanjiji published by 廣文社. author is 玄采. not goverment.

Your edit concerning Korean mnemonic name (Yanko) [6]
The record that you presented is a diary of warship Amagi. 韓海通漁指針(Kankaitsuryoushisin) is not a diary of warship Amagi. It was printed on January 1, 1903.[7] "Kankaitsuryoushisin" record that "韓人及び本邦漁人これをヤンコと呼び(Korean and Japanese fishermen were calling this Yanko)." The reason for your edit is irrelevant. Your edit will be riverted.--Opp2 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, opp2, you happen to take an aithoritative voice here, why not address clearly to me like this also, so I might be able to understand your edits? You constantly claim that I am Pov-pushing, but You do not address to me clearly. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this your opinion relates to the subject (ICJ, Kankaitsuryoushisin, Daehan Jeondo)? Could you logically explain the relation to the subject? Or, is this a personal attack again?--Opp2 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this isn't a personal atttack, I am asking you to explain your edits without slyly dismissing my reverts as Pov and such... I am not talking about the maps issue, as I am ignoring it for now. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

リアンクルド岩は韓人は独島(Korean called Liancourt Rocks as "Dokdo") [8](in Japanese) By 1904 Japanese Navy Document. Korean called Liancourt Rocks as Not only "Yanko" but also "Dokdo", "Seok-Do", "Usando". so, your opinion is, in that time korean called "Yanko" only.? It is not fact. Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

!

Opp2 likes to say "blatant POV" to my edits and reverts, but honestly, Opp2's edits usually make no sense, incite confusion, or both. Let's see, all I usually do is integrate this " Japanese scholer say" and "Korean scholar claim" into a single and fluid interpretation... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I don't really think this "pov balance" and this ridiculous debate table of different interpretations can be acceptable in an encyclopedia. Don't controversial subjects as this usually go by consensus of documents and analysis, since none seem to effectively disprove another? otherwise, any attempt to correctly interpret would breach WP:OR. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't become a reason to press only Korean interpretation and delete Japanese interpretation. Your edit always emphasizes the Korean interpretation. This is POV.--Opp2 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

nah, thats what you think. It really makes no sense to say a Korean interpretation and Japanese interpretation. exactly who are what is it that makes it his or its interpretation? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give this article a rest

I'm not sure how to further proceed with this article. While I appreciate that several of you guys have been struggling hard to work constructively, I don't think the article is actually improving, and the editing is still in a state of perennial slow edit-warring.

Much of this is apparently due to the poor English. Guys, I appreciate your efforts in working in a language that's not your native one (it isn't mine either), and I realise some of you have a good deal of knowledge to contribute, but you must understand that the article has become hardly readable. Please use some restraint in introducing new material if you're not sure of your English. Give it some time to consolidate so that some competent editors can tidy up the existing text so it begins to make some sense.

There are many things that editors with limited English skills can fruitfully do on Wikipedia. Negotiating NPOV on a politically sensitive article is really not one of them.

This goes especially to Opp2. You've introduced a hell of a lot of text, some of it knowledgeable, some of it apparently poorly sourced, tendentious and/or OR. The sheer volume and frequency of your edits is preventing this text from consolidating. You evidently have no consensus for the changes you make, but you keep editing insistently in a way that nobody can keep up with.

I'd prefer if we could resolve this on a voluntary basis so we don't need to go down the road into RfC's and Arbcom again. I appeal to Opp2 and other regulars of this page:

• Please stay away from editing the article, voluntarily, for at least two months.
• Give other, outside editors a chance to work on it in the meantime and consolidate it.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please point it out concretely about poorly sourced or OR. Which edit is it? I admit the problem concerning English. However, I can not understand poor source and OR. I want you to point it out concretely if there is a problem. --Opp2 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The point about my proposal was really that I would like these things to be discussed with somebody else, for a change, not with you. Therefore I'll take the answer into a new section below. Please let's keep this section for a discussion of process, not of content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already stopped the edit of the article. Do you allow such edits?[9] Do these edits maintain POV-balance? An inconvenient record for Korean interpretation and Japanese interpretation with source will be excluded, If you do not do anything. You appeal not only me but also other regulars of this page. I am paying attention to your judgment.--Opp2 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some OR problems

As Opp2 has asked for examples of poor sourcing and OR, here's just a few samples from his last few edits. I haven't checked all the earlier material but I suppose the quality will be similar. This is highly problematic.

• [10] -- Source cited didn't establish there was a "controversy" about this.

In a Korean version[11], it is being written that there was a controversy in Korea (There were a lot of dissenting opinions concerning his map. 이날 한은 홈페이지 게시판에는 수십여 건의 의견이 올라온 가운데 조선시대 김정호가 제작한 대동여지도에 대한 반대 의견이 주를 이뤘다). In addition, it writes like as follows. "In fact, Liancourt Rocks has not been described in his map of 1861 version. Then Japan has made it as the evidence which shows Liancourt Rocks is not a Korea territory.(실제로 김정호가 만든 대동여지도 목판본(1861년)에는 독도가 나와있지 않아 일본이 그동안 독도는 한국 영토가 아니라고 주장하는 근거의 하나로 이용해 왔다)" Were you able to consent?--Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

실제로 김정호가 만든 대동여지도 목판본(1861년)에는 독도가 나와있지 않아 일본이 그동안 독도는 한국 영토가 아니라고 주장하는 근거의 하나로 이용해 왔다.그러나 일본 국회도서관에서 울릉도 동쪽에 `우산(于山)'이라고 표시된 독도가 있는 대동여지도 필사본이 발견되자 목판본을 만들 때 판각 범위를 벗어났기 때문에 어쩔 수 없이 독도가 빠졌다는 분석도 제기되고 있다. [12](in Korean)

10만원권 대동여지도에는 독도도 함께 표기하기로 했다. 한은은 김정호 목판본(보물 제850호)을 기본으로 하고 필사본 등의 내용을 고려해 디자인하기로 했다고 밝혔다. [13](in Korean)

Why did not metioned this? Do not omitting sentence by your own will. POV fork? Whatdamn (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• [14] -- Source cited does not establish the Korean government "admitted" anything about the map and its significance.

(See above:In fact, Liancourt Rocks has not been described in his map of 1861 version.) The South Korea government adds Liancourt Rocks because it doesn't write in the map[15]. Is this OR?. To begin with, isn't present article OR? Because it describes wthout secondary source that the island is being drawn though the island is not drawn. Can you see islands other than Ulleungdo?[16]

• [17] -- Only primary sources cited, no secondary sources showing who is actually using these facts as an argument.

• Prof. Funasugi. 『大韓地誌』では、朝鮮の東限は鬱陵島（東経１３０度）としています。現在の竹島（独島）の経度は東経１３１度５２分であることから、朝鮮の東限は１８９９年の時点で、地図、そして文献でも鬱陵島であったことが確認されます。In theDaehanjiji, the east of Korea is made Ullengdo(130 east). Beacuse Liancourt Rocks is 131 52" east, It is understood that the east edge of Korea was Ulleung-do in 1899. [18]
• Prof. Funasugi. 『大韓全図』、『大韓輿地図』はいずれも大韓帝国の学部編輯局が刊行した地図です。（中略）このように、韓国政府が発行した地図に竹島は記されていません。(The Daehan Jeondo is a map that the Korea government issued. Though Usan is drawn, it is jukdo. Takeshima is not drawn in the map that the South Korea government issued. [19]

I think that Prof. Shimojo also was writing in his book too. Is it insufficient still? --Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please point it out like this. Please stop judging OR and poor source before you confirms to me.--Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not controversy.

first of all, Controversy mean "a lot of discussion and argument about something".

When discussion happen? even in Japan, did not discussed this.

2nd, Daedong Yeojido have 25 different version. Opp2 mentioned 'Daedong Yeojido, Mokpanbon' version.

but, other version of 'Daedong Yeojido'. for example, 'Daedong Yeojido, Pilsabon' mentioned Usando's existence.

Bank of Korea, cross reference from Mokpanbon and Pilsabon map.

独島が存在する筆写本Pilsabonの mapを参照すると明らかにしたので, これは客観的な FACT. これ以上 controversyではないです.

Already done story. no more controversy. Whatdamn (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issue, (Daehanjiji...), i already answered at 'ICJ issue' section. Whatdamn (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide translations for things you quote? Please be aware that many readers here will understand either no word of Korean, or no word of Japanese, or (like me) no word of either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of his quotation: There was an analysis that Dokdo is omited in wood block version at 1861 when a calligraphy-brush version which Usando(Dokdo) was drawn east of Ulleungdo was found in the Japanese National Diet Library[20]. Then, though the Bank of Korea decided to designe based on wood block version, they allow for other versions too.--Opp2 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Whatdamn, here is a section to understand the point of Fut.Perf for me. Please do in the section below if you make noise any further.--Opp2 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He argues in Japanese that it is not a controversy any longer because it has solved. When his logic is applied, it is necessary to delete the article about XBOX. I can not understand his insistence and the intention of his quotation well.--Opp2 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Section for Whatdamn

Please present your reserch here to one's heart's content. --Opp2 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have not seen the version of the National Diet Library either. I think that there are neither a thesis nor a site which the image of this map was published. --Opp2 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I found the version of the Japanese National Diet Library. See P118[21] Prof. Funasugi is interpreting this Usando as jukdo(same page).

Daedong Yeojido have 25 different printing version. don't metioned that," daedong yeojido, mokpanbon" is only daedong yeojido. It provoke to confuse.

foreign people Can not read Japanese language pdf file. so it is unclear 'Usando as jukdo'. also this document written by some japan student.(not scholar) and this student's logic is not valid to other. this student author said, 'usando=jukdo' but lack of fact. and lack of reason. Your document is truly 'Original researched'. Whatdamn (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

and i already talked why 'usando=jukdo' theory is impossible. [22] Whatdamn (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The calligraphy-brush version of of the Japanese National Diet Library is here.[23]
• The actual location of islands are here. [24]

I can not think grounds that can deny the Jukdo theory to be presented. It is neither me not nor you that decide it. Prof. funasugi is an aassociate professor at National Universities in Japan(Shimane University). His major is historical geography. Which university is your Funasugi studying as a student?　Please teach me.--Opp2 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

oh? is he a professor? OK. (my japanese reading skill is not perfect) anyway, can i see his homepage and profile? i want check, your claim is real or not. according to your document, author did not mentioned that he is a professor. Whatdamn (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's verify whether your Japanese is a cause. You concluded that he is a student. If anything did not write, it is not understood that he is a student. please present the site where it causes your misunderstanding about Prof. Funasugi as a student.--Opp2 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You concluded the he is a student with Bold-faced type. Did you conclude based on what information? Did you blaspheme him though there were neither information nor evidence anything? Did you blaspheme him based on your delusion? Please present the site where it causes your misunderstanding about Prof. Funasugi as a student.--Opp2 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

i already said, according to your document, author did not mentioned that he is a professor. now your turn. Whatdamn (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bro, this map[25] was very roughly sketched. In old times, map making technology was not good. You think ancient Human can measure azimuth, direction, latitude, longtitude, sea distance exactly? It is impossible. nevertheless, Usando depicted as east side of Uleungdo. Your logic is comedy logic. When your logic is applied, [26] Then Hokkaido is not Japan's territory, too. Whatdamn (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your logic, the age is different(17C and 19C), the subject is different(Ahn who is a criminal and a lier(official answer of Chosun government) and Chosun government) and Geographic characteristic is different. After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. And, Wikipedia is not a place where it decides which is correct. --Opp2 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahn is lier? It is truly Original research. first of all, give me source. second, Korea goverment did not say Liancourt Rocks sovereignty matter. Don't make Distorition. Your style is "omitting". After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. Whatdamn (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is not a place where it decides which is correct. this sentence for you.

your logic as follows, find some 'human error' or something 'error'(in fact, many of are not error). "See! It was not korea's. It was Japan's!" I just curious, Whatever you say, Your logic did not proved Japan occupied Liancourt Rocks, too.Whatdamn (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

so your claim that, "Usando is not Liancourt Rocs. Usando was Jukdo or Gwaneumdo!"

Let's clarify this. Your logic start from "Korean did not know Liancourt Rocks existence for thousands of years."

Let's see this photo[27], Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).

How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?

Your logic is failure logic, because start from inaccurate presumption. Whatdamn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This time, is it a record of the 15th century? As for your logic, the age is different (15C, 17C and 19C). After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you.--Opp2 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. It is you :) Whatdamn (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[28] I find some fabrication. He(Ahn) is the stupid people. Even if he does something, a Joseon government is unrelated. 肅宗31卷 23年(1697年2月14日) "於漂風愚民, 設有所作爲, 亦非朝家所知

I don't know Why this sentence interpret like that? It does NOT mean, ahn is stupid person. Who make this fabrication?

Let's see full text.[29](in Korean)

Whatdamn (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens, Whatdamn, I don't want to be rude, but your English is even poorer than Opp's. What you guys write here for the most part makes no sense at all to an English speaker without a huge amount of effort at guessing what you are trying to say.

Sorry, but you people have no chance making this a readable article, ever. I repeat my request: Please, can both of you, please, just take a break from editing this article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but lemme just put some touches to at least make the article readable. I really haven't contributed information at all; I was editing nonsense and what I thought to be outrageously childish. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahn's guilty was false personation, represented himself to be a government official. Not soverign matter. Korean goverment did not guilty him for soverign matter.

In 1696, 肅宗實錄 record. [30] (in Korean)

則領敦寧尹趾完以爲 龍福私往他國 猥說國事'안용복은 사사로이 다른 나라에 가서 외람되게 나라의 일을 말하였는데'

Ahn did not have right for goverment work, But he represented himself to be a government official.

知事申汝哲曰 龍福之事 雖極痛駭 國家所不能爲之事 渠能爲之 功過足以相掩 不可斷以一罪也. 지사(知事) 신여철(申汝哲)이 말하기를, 안용복의 일은 매우 놀랍기는 하나, 국가에서 못하는 일을 그가 능히 하였으므로 공로와 죄과가 서로 덮을 만하니, 일죄(一罪)로 결단할 수 없겠습니다."

even if he did false personation, Ahn worked for country's official affairs. his achievement exceeds his guilty. Whatdamn (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

yo, it wasn't me, look at opp2 for that... hell I am ignoring that for now to avoid another coflict with our buddy opp2// o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

The history of this article is a disgrace and yet again we see it being raised at ANI. I seriously believe we are better off without the battles that this article provokes. I have therefore deleted it. Perhaps the combatants can seriously consider the impact of their squabbles on the wider project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how deletion (as opposed to blanking, but that too) was pertinent to anything. I restored the undisputed intro and protected. El_C 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I left a note on your talk page explaining myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

You don't delete an article because there was edit warring! The notice in place of the content of this article is unacceptable and astounding that administrators let it happen. Protecting is fine, but someone needs to fix this state of the article and fast. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at WP:ANI. As a breaching exercise to get some movement here, the deletion has been significantly more successful then I expected. In due course we will undelete the history. Please feel free to join in the discussion at ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

direct link: Wikipedia:ANI#Liancourt Rocks -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging stuff back

I temporarily left out some of the uncontroversial factual material about geography etc., simply because while the history was deleted I couldn't rewrite them without breaking GFDL. Now that the history is back (good call, probably) there'd be no problem reinstating those parts bit by bit.

As for the infobox, yes, leaving that out was intentional. The infobox was a perennial source of silly revert-warring over the mere ordering of the Japan- and Korea-related entries. Under these circumstances I thought not having a box at all would be better. These boxes don't serve much of a real purpose anyway, do they. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right! I came to this article a couple of weeks ago as a West European with a lay interest in the subject. And what a horrible mishmash it was, with its computer-translated English, and great chunks of Korean and Japanese that the editors couldn't even be bothered to Romanise. It was obviously going to be impossible ever to edit this into readable English, because the edit-warriors were at it over a dozen times a day, - so there was no prospect it could ever improve. I'm at least relieved, reading the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Liancourt_Rocks, to see that this conduct is truly exceptional in Wikipedia; and I agree that, interesting though this could be as a fuller article, the present stub is better than the unintelligible and illiterate saga it replaced. I take the point that deletion isn't a natural response to edit warring, but desperate cases require desperate remedies. The history replacement allows the original material, some of which is indeed interesting and relevant to be seen; seems good enough. ariwara (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That silly Japan-Korea KOrea- Japan war was annoying, but even if it was disputed, The infobox violates no Wikipedia convention. I demand that the infobox be put back. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Practically all the information it provided is given in the article; why therefore restore something that was the cause of a pointless edit-war? BLACKKITE 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have read this first. I restored the infobox only because I, at least, failed to see it changing much. Let me know what is disputed in it, and perhaps we can modify it accordingly, or even remove it entirely. Its value isn't that great, I agree. As for the Geography, Climate and part of the Ecology sections I restored today, let me know if there is anything disputed in these, as well, and we can go from there. Many thanks. El_C 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. As for the box, I certainly have no problem with it, but Korean editors were forever unhappy when the Japanese entries were placed first, and vice versa. Plus, there used to be some silly debates about whether it was fair to characterise as "administration" whatever it is that Japan does with the islands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that so long as we are consistent in having symmetry, there should be few complaints. Also, I noted what we are doing here to the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motions#Liancourt Rocks article probation. El_C 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You underestimate how many things editors actually can and do complain about. ;-) But sure, leave it in for now. Nice thing the arbs reacted this quickly too. A fully voted motion just hours after the issue was raised on ANI is surely a first? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the Infobox is good as it is, 'cept the use of the word occupied somewhat annoys me. I think using such a word gives the reader a sense of violent intent and unlawful administration by the ROK. I suggest a different word, such as "current administration". Also, the silly "East Sea" sort of bothers me. I was under the impression that the official designation for those waters was "Sea of Japan". I couldn't give at all a care for the users that are angered by this petty issue, so i suggest that it be removed. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

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

discussion on the infobox

Yes, I'm not happy about the order in the infobox and other Korean might think so. I always think that changing the info box could prevent editors from making silly warrings on it. I'm not good at making or altering the table, so I just roughly made this.

Both countries name equally are placed on the same line. The order is just on the left and right side. I might miss something but it is my best. And as you see, in the infobox, two options are for the current status. --Appletrees (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably possible to make this change on Template:Infobox Islands. However, it would be technically very challenging and I don't think that people would accept the changes to the box itself. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I keep saying in such situations: Infoboxes are generally not worth the trouble. They add no real information value, and they force editors to condense information to such a degree that makes it extremely difficult to maintain the necessary disclaimers, hedging, sourcing etc. whenever a piece of information is not absolutely straightforward and factual. That's why prose text is generally preferable. There's a reason real, good, traditional encyclopedias are written in prose and not in the form of tabulated data sheets. Infoboxes are a severely over-used feature of Wikipedia. If in doubt, leave it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about making an additional infobox only for the disputed territories. In the wikproject Korean film, an editor made a template for only Korean films to insert several original name and translation. Please see this. {{Infobox Film}} vs {{Infobox Korean film}} -Appletrees (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you could do that. But why would you? I seriously don't get it, what's so nice about infoboxes that everybody wants to have them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not worth the trouble. What we have right now is probably good enough. El_C 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean why I would want the infobox instead of letting it go from the page? Well, the table makes the page authentic encyclopedia to me. I don't mind the infobox taken out forever, but some editor said he wants to restore it. It is just optional. I'm not forcing to use the template. --Appletrees (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the nature of your original objection. El_C 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what is my original objection. Please specifically say to me. You restored the old template which has caused consistent edit warrings. Therefore, if majority of editors here want to use the template, I suggest to use the altered template instead. If the table is not worth to keep at the page, then just throw it. --Appletrees (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "Yes, I'm not happy about the order in the infobox and other Korean might think so." Why? El_C 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As Fut.Perf said the above thread, the template has many problems. Japanese government technically doesn't administrates the rocks. And the order could misguides the contents and first impression for readers as if Japan owned the islets and South Korea defied to the situation. For the reasons, I understand why many Korean editors suddenly intervene the article and changed the order. If you think the template is good at this point, that is not true. And I'm supporting for changing the template or not using it.--Appletrees (talk)

What is the definition of the Administeration here? (Also note that both countries also claim this island) --Kingj123 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese editors believe that Japan "administers" it if they include it in their country map, mention it in news channels, etc. Its something that is slightly POV against Korea but it can stay up there. Good friend100 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@El_C, the reason why some may not like the current setup is because it implies that Japan owns the rocks partly as of now or that Japan has a right to the islets. No one else thinks that Japan has a right to the islets except Japan itself. As for the definition of "administer" there are no sources or articles anywhere that I can find that says "Japan administers the islets, along with Korea". They are all a form of "Korea administers the islets and Japan claims them". I certainly think it is biased. "Administrate" implies that Japan controls the islets, which they don't. Appletree's setup makes it more clear as to what each country thinks it should be and compares them side to side with none of that "whoever-is-on-top-is-better" syndrome. Its a nice suggestion, I like it. Why do you have to be so confronting? I know appletrees has made some poor comments, that doesn't mean he can't make good suggestions. Good friend100 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about that now, I personally think that Japan has no justified claim over the islets. But since no settlement was made between the two countries or the ICL, It must be correct to include Japan under administration, considering that Wikipedia has no right to decide, per WP:OR. Though Japan does not administer these islets, I can't think of any other word that can better suit the infobox section than the word "administration". o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Though the definition of "technically administration[31]" is not clear. I think that he indicate the "physical occupation". In the judicial precedent of ICJ, the tribunal, taxation, and the cadaster registration are admitted as a effective control. Japan is registering Liancourt Rocks to her cadaster and civil trials about Liancourt Rocks ware done. In International Law, the declaration of the protest becomes a kind of the display of sovereignty, too.There are a lot of small islands in Japan wihch are not under "governmental technically administration(physical occupation)". If their standards are applied, Japan will not administrate those islands.--Opp2 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

After all, grounds of their complaint are as follows.

• Good friend100:"No one else thinks that Japan has a right to the islets except Japan itself"[32]
• O.d.s.t:"Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea."[33]

It might be difficult to build the consensus as long as they think these are NPOV.--Opp2 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys. Here we go again. We've heard all this a million times. Since you're all back to bickering over the infobox, the infobox goes out. As I said, it's simply not worth it wasting all this talk space over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is a good judgment for you. --Opp2 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I first tried removing only the "administration" part of the box, but it's not technically possible the way the template is coded, it will insist on an entry. I surely wish template authors wouldn't put code into their boxes that made entries obligatory. (Another pet peeve.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, I have one question. Though the information about Korean occupation is descrived three times in the introduction ("Korea has controlled them...","except for a small Korean police detachment, administrative...","Korea administers the islands as part...") , the protest by Japan that exists in the quotation never mention.Please teach me the reason.--Opp2 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh, are we going to count references to J and K now? :-) Well, for one, where it deals with the people present on the islands, we can hardly avoid stating that they are Koreans, right? As for the rest, I wouldn't mind complementing the "Korea has controlled it since..." with a preceding "Japan governed it between 1904 and 1945" or something like that. Are the dates problematic? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the reason why Korea is making not military forces but the special police reside? The reason is to make out "peaceful" effective control and "no despute". Consequentially, the introduction of a physical occupation by Korea is the same as the introduction of the display of Korean sovereignty. Therefore, there is no balance from the the standpoint of display of sovereignty. "Protest" has the same effect as the physical occupation in International Law. Therefore, I think it is necessary to insert the Japanese protest(display of Japanese sovereignty) from POV balance about sovereignty. --Opp2 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please get rid of the infobox. It adds nothing. It merely offers another opportunity for squabbling. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this article has more then enough opportunities to allow squabbling. I see that the arbitration Committe have passed article probation on this article and that this allows admins to ban disruptive editors from the article. We probably need to agree some groundrules but my 2c would be that anyone who cannot behave respectfully to other editors should not be expecting to edit this article in the longer term. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Under Korea it should read "administration" simply because by the literal definition of the word Korea does "administer" Liancourt Rocks. For example Collins Cobuild dictionary defines "administer" as: If someone adminsters something such as a country, law or a test, they take responsibility for organizing and supervising it. Longman says: To manage and organize the affairs of a company, government etc.

Of course Korea supervises and organizes all affairs over Liancourt Rocks that involve governmental activities such as military, police, postal, and public services that are require. None of this has to do whether or not it is "legal" or not. Wiki has to stay within the literal definitions of terminology and not be influenced by people like Opp2 who continually cite "legal" scholars interpretations of these words.

The term "occupation" below Korea implies Korea's presence there is an act of aggression, which the Korean government denies of course. Occupy means to seize by force and at the time Korea gained control of Liancourt Rocks the islands were no country was exercising any control over the islands. "Occupy" reeks of JPOV. Below Japan it reads "claimed" This implies Japan actually has a legitimate claim to Liancourt Rocks which is debatable. A more appropriated term would be "disputes"Clownface (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a little late for the discussion on the infobox. It is taken out from the article now and I'm satisfied with the smart decision. All information regarding the "dispute" is mentioned in the text. Now we need to stick to the new rule and make constructive contributions here.--Appletrees (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OPP2, if you're gonna quote one of my statements, then please paste ALL of it. the perpetual statement I made was used to prove a concept, and does not really apply as what I actually said. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Rochers de Liancourt"

El C's recent version sounds as if the French whaling ship was itself called "Rochers de Liancourt". I had always understood the ship would have been called just "Liancourt"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rochers de Liancourt is just the name of the rocks in French.

French Wikipedia article says the whaling ship which discovered the rocks in January 27, 1849 was called "Le Liancourt":

• "Le nom occidental de Rochers de Liancourt fait référence au baleinier français Le Liancourt qui, parti du Havre, « découvrit » l'archipel le 27 janvier 1849."

--Endroit (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. El_C 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential to the original point (& I hope this does not ruin the tenuous calm currently enforced on this article), but is "discovered and charted" the best choice of words here? I cannot believe that fishermen and other sailors from Japan Korea nearby have trawled through these waters for centuries, & never noticed these islands before. "Discover" often implies an unintentional Eurocentric POV; I encounter this problem with language often in articles about Africa, where people have lived for tens of thousands of years -- & can be presumed to have discovered every landform millennia before the beginnings of recorded history. I'd like to propose that this clause be changed to something along the lines of "whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849." -- llywrch (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, makes sense. Probably uncontroversial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I used my Admin bit & made the change -- even though I'll admit the phrasing of my revision is awkward. If someone seriously objects to my edit, feel free to revert it back. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes in article

There are currently two permanent residents on Dokdo: [34] [35]

Dokdo was incorporated into Ulleung County in 1900, before Japan "incorporated" it in 1905. [36] [37] [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespeed (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical Error on the Liancourt Rocks page

Please correct the historical inaccuracy on the Liancourt Rocks page. The page regarding the history of the dispute reads as: "Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate.."

The nation of Korea was physically "militarily occupied" by Japanese troops as of February 8th 1904 over a year before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. Japanese troops declared war on Russia and attacked Russian ships Variag and Korietz in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. After that, Japanese troops landed in Incheon and marched into Seoul. After weeks of coercion and threats the Japan~Korea Protocol was signed "legally" allowing the Japanese to appropriate Korean land for military purposes. Here is wiki's page regarding the Japan~Korea Protocol signed February 23rd 1904. Check article four. It reads:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Protocol_Signed_Between_Japan_and_Korea_of_1904

"The Imperial Government of Japan may, for the attainment of the above mentioned object, occupy when the circumstances require, such places as may be necessary for strategic reasons"

Here is a map from JACAR's national archives showing the position of Japanese military telegraph wires and watchtower outposts in Korea, China and Japan as of (38th year of Meiji) January 1905. (Before Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks) It has been labelled in English for the viewer. I can supply an unedited image of the original map upon request.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/overall-telegraph-map-1905-1.jpg

"Liancourt Rocks page should read. "Japan incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, about a year after it militarily occupied Korea during the Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905"

Please correct this historical inaccuracyClownface (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW Japanese naval maps showing location of all Japanese watchtowers and telegraph lines installed during the 1904~1905 Russo~Japanese War in Korea and China can be seen on these pages. All of them are from Japan's national archives. Original unedited maps can be provided upon request

Please check here for details.

• http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations.html
• http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html
• http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

Cheers, hope this helps set the timeline straight.Clownface (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read your opinion yet, but frankly your editing style is hard to read. I just cleaned up a bit for readability and saving space. (you maybe be mad at me, but the admin's comment at ANI was right.-Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Korea might want to emphasize the war to give an unlawful impression. However, the cue of incorporating into Shimane was the sea lion hunting. A hunter requested incorporation for sustainable hunting. Then Liancourt Rocks was incorporated. This dialogue is recorded in the document of the Japanese cabinet decision. By the way, maintenance and the construction of military facilities are taken as evidence of the effective control in international law. The most important thing is whether another country expressed her protest or not against the effective comtrol. In addition, Japan did not engage in warfare with Korea. Therefore, "militarily occupied" is legally wrong.--Opp2 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, historical accuracy shouldn't be sacrificed at the expense of readability. Your timeline is wrong. Japan militarily occupied Korea first, (February 23, 1904) and then "incorporated" Liancourt Rocks about a year later. I'm not angry at all, I think the edits are a great thus far. The map I posted above shows Japan had already installed numerous facilities by January 1st 1905.Clownface (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Insertion Suggest

{{edit protected}}

The islets are known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally solitary island) in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島 (たけしま)) (literally Bamboo island) in Japanese. The English name Liancourt Rocks is derived from Le Liancourt, the name of the French whaling ship whose crew discovered and charted the islets in 1849.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzathegza (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2008

N Declined, no consensus for this edit at this time. Sandstein (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh.....how do you find out the unfamiliar (to me) "edit protected" and "nihongo" template ? Even I with loosely one-year- wekipedia experience don't know about it. You seem to be a super quick learner (you created your account today) or a long time user from anonymous ip user, visiting editor from other language wiki (Japanese or Korean wiki) or switching accounts. Here is a hot zone, so I suggest at least you try to edit other articles for 1 or 2 month. You can easily get a suspicion about your edits from anyone. And I'm sick of sockpuppetry and ip users from any side.-Appletrees (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are going way way too far with this comment. I understand that this article has seen a lot of junk from ill-meaning editors, but when you switch directly to these accusations, this is a complete witch hunt. Seriously, if you don't have anything nice to say when a change to a fully protected page is requested properly, don't say anything. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nothing but a truth what I said. I didn't intend any witch hunt as you falsely accuse me. I feel offended by your chide. Well the new user might get the same impression from me, but as you've watched, what cause seeming a new user have brought up here. I hope in future, the whole contents would not be deleted. I just said one suggestion to the new user not to act suspicious which might prevent him from undergoing unpleasant things. I suggested some of them, but no vain. Here is a hot zone. And I haven't seen you at all before the incident happened either. The user is certainly not a visiting Korena wikipedian because there is none of such the edit protected template. I doubt Japanese wikipedia has the same template either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BITE. Weather a user is new to Wikipedia or new to the article discussion, you should in absolutely no circumstances use that information in a hostile manner. You accused this user of being a sock puppet and told him to GTFO. I hope this clarifies my disposition. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ney, I'm not hostile to the newbie, but suggest to build up credibility. If you guess were stemmed from my last sentence, it is just what I face now and not toward the newbie. I didn't accuse the use of a sockpuppet or anything but provided possibilities where the user might come from (4 examples as you see). I've tried to inform newbies not to make drastic changes on this article if there is no consensus because so many people keep eye on the article but no vain. The recently infinitely banned newbie was also get a suspicion from the admin at first. Regardless of their nationality, a sudden appearance of newbies at this article causes almost always not good results. In my opinion, you bring also negative tone to this article. --Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first post:
I'm confused by the time stamps, but it appears that this has already been added, which is good. Reading this, it sounds like a good summary of the different names for it (to the extent of my knowledge of the subject). In addition to the Template:nihongo, one may also use the Template:lang-ko for the Korean name. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another note, if one wanted to make the Japanese format consistent with the Korean format, a method I've used in other articles is:

• Takeshima (竹島, literally Bamboo island)

However, the Korean template does not work the same way.

• Korean: 독도, romanized: literally solitary island

My solution would be to use these two:

• Takeshima (Japanese: 竹島, literally Bamboo island)
• Dokdo (Korean: 독도, literally solitary island)

Well... this isn't very elegant, but if you wanted to be completely even-handed, some variation of this might be the only option. If you wanted to use any templates at all. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The suggested edit is insertion of " (たけしま)" to the Japanese name and not done yet. I don't think this is necessary because it is not common practice to give both kanji and kana representations of Japanese terms on English Wikipedia; generally, romanized Japanese and kana representations maps one to one so it is considered redundant.

And to make the Japanese format consistent with the Korean format, I suggest to use {{nihongo|'''Takeshima|竹島|extra=, literally ''Bamboo island''}}. This gives Takeshima (竹島, , literally bamboo island); "literally bamboo island" part goes into brackets and "literally" not itailcized. Additionally, I request bamboo island downcased so it matches Korean solitary island. --Kusunose (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that たけしま shouldn't be added because it's redundant with simply writing "Takeshima". I agree with downcasting Bamboo or upcasting solitary (quick fix here). My other recommendation would be to remove the nihongo template and keep the stuff in a single set of parentheses like the Korean. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed "Bamboo" to "bamboo" and modified the nihongo template usage to make kanji and literal meaning in a single set of parentheses. I have kept {{nihongo}} as per WP:MOS-JA, though. --Kusunose 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea

Occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea was in 1954, not in 1945. [[39]]Amazonfire (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why all the writings of arduous work are cut short? (Its been 3 months since I was last on this article. I am very surprised that almost all of the article is deleted.)Veritasian (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Veritasian. Some weeks ago, after another complaint about edit warring and uncooperative editing on the admins noticeboard, several admins came to the conclusion that this article had become unmanageable. It was forever an object of edit wars, and at the same time it was being edited by people with very limited command of English. Both problems together had led to the article growing chaotically with lots of substandard quality material and little chance that it would ever be cleaned up. One admin spontaneously even deleted the whole article (well, that was rather, let's say, unconventional...) Anyway, it was then determined that it would be best to stub it back and subsequently keep it protected for a while. I wrote a short stub, and other people then merged a bit of the non-contentious passages from the old article back in. We'll let it slowly grow to a natural size again, but under tight admin supervision. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on a wiki free encyclopedia similar to Wikipedia & I think that the admin supervision & the arbitration oversight stuffs here are not enough. When we write our article on Liancourt Rocks, this article will look so terrible & nasty & childish that you guys will just regret or something - I mean, you will be forced to change it simply because it will look terrible & "POV"ish compared to ours. To me, this article is not coherent, it doesn't flow, and it's just a jumble of undedicated edits by editors who are simply fighting over trivial issues such as putting which flag over which, arguing whether it's just a claim & administration or disputed by both, etc - just the wording & the presentation... this article is just a jumble of such compromises - to satisfy each of these competing parties & ideologies. It will never become a featured article. Some ppl just don't know enough about outside issues, some ppl are just convinced that this is right, & some want to follow their nationalistic sentiments.

Simply, I see the situation to be locked b/w those forces & especially to the nationalists here, I know that you guys are trying to push very subtle changes that will satisfy your wants & hope that they get underway as neutral.... but when we write our article on Liancourt Rocks, your subtleties will come to be seen in contrast as huge blunders (again evidence to the many problems in Wikipedia) & probably ppl here will be forced to make appropriate changes again - & the nationalists will regret - b/c there would be no point for them to have pushed those changes to begin with

I'll add, to some who are clueless about international situations what I say may sound stupid but really you guys dont understand neutrality at all. If a country has stronger claim than the other, you can't present both disputers on equal level. When 1 country has stronger claim, it's not a sin nor is it biased to say that country has stronger claim. That country's stronger claim is presented as it is, not as less, not as more. "Then the other party's assertions are neglected!" so some nationalists here say. But so what? You don't like it, too bad. Country X lost the war. Then you write "Country X lost the war." End of story. You don't say "Country X and Y engaged in a war" & then leave the question of who won the war to the readers when Country X clearly won the war. "Oh, people of Country X will be offended when they read this!" So? Whether they will disagree or not is another matter.

Then who decides who's claim is stronger? Nobody. Just read reports & news on this dispute. If a paper says "according to an international study x has stronger claim that y", write just that. And that should be all. Until someone else brings an evidence that states otherwise, that assertion should remain. But here nationalists dont want that & constantly bring in government sources (obviously, Japan says Y, Korea says X) & try to argue their way in. But "Japan says Y" "Korea says X" has nothing to do with the question of presentation & neutrality. That should be the question of the dispute. It's already been confirmed they are disputing. Then any of the government papers should be disregarded. They're of no use any more. You people must turn to scholarly journals & write exactly as the journals say. Don't pick out certain facts. Just put all of them in.

Find western, scholarly articles. And if that journal article says something put it in. It's not your place to determine the perfect balance of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.41.113 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice. Good luck with your own wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New map

The new Japanese topographic map (without Korean structures) based on satellite data can be found here:

• map (image only)
• map (on GSI website)

The islets are in the upper right. If the GSI (= 国土地理院) owns all rights to the map, and if all GSI data happens to be in the public domain, then somebody should perhaps crop the image and upload it to Commons. Wikipeditor (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that the map without any permission from South Korean government should" be included in Commons and here? The map with the Japanese name is far from NPOV and of course you know which country officially has the sovereignty. --Appletrees (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

国土地理院=Japanese, the map is Japanese government property as far as I can tell. And I have no information indicating that their work has PD status. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You might've mistaken my wording again. The new map without any permission from South Korean government who administers the islet is illegal. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Even if it was undisputed that the island is Korean (which you know just as well as we all is not the case), it wouldn't be "illegal" for another government to make a map of it. Korea doesn't own the geographical information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't say any ridiculous comment on the matter. The news was aired in South Korean media and people are disputing on Japanese "bold" move. And some of governmental officers said it is a violation to South Korean sovereignty. If you don't believe me, please google it and don't insult me. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is required by law that to reproduce GSI's maps and aerial photographs, one have to get their approval[40]. In some cases, providing a citation is enough[41] but I'm not sure its use on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons meets it. (Note: linked pages are in Japanese) --Kusunose (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the map above a joke??

Can any of the people on this forum read Kanji? The islands are called Takeshima "竹島" on this map. The posters on this website bickered ad nauseum to call this article Liancourt Rocks and then they are going to post a map that calls the islands Takeshima? WTF?

By the way doesn't this map also say the island is part or limits of Oki Prefecture (隱岐) ?

I’m totally opposed to this map. Whoever proposed it is either JPOV or not knowledgeable enough on the subject to edit or post on the Liancourt Rocks page.124.80.111.109 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There was never a snowball's chance in hell that we could have used this map. It does belong to the Japanese government, and there's nothing illegal about making maps of places without permission of the owner of the land - no issues from South Korea. And about the POV, if (and this is a big if) it were Wikipedia-usable it would have to have some free-license, which would ideally allow users here to edit them adding the proper Korean or English whatever. Now that we got that out of the way, it's not PD and it can't be used. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The map is highly unlikely released as PD-whatever, but Theanphibian, I don't think I could ever agree with your above comment. That is just another POV.--Appletrees (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody adjust the coordinates so that the islands are back on the Eastern hemisphere, and not on the Western? Classical geographer (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. [42]. We almost placed them under US sovereignty. I guess neither the Japanese nor the Koreans would have thanked us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for unprotecting?

Fellow admins: since we can't keep this article protected forever, and we now have the article probation in place (WP:ARBLIANCOURT), what do you think, should we move to just semi? I would suggest that we should apply the probation bans to a couple of the "usual suspects" proactively: At least Odst (talk · contribs), Opp2 (talk · contribs) and probably Clownface (talk · contribs) have been so persistently disruptive that I think they needn't even try editing again; they'd certainly fall foul of the requirements and get banned within a week. Should we add more to this list? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. would you place a conspicuous note (something like big yellow sign) concerning the 1RR policy and probation rule on this article for precaution to any editor? This page is somewhat like a pilgrimage to the Holy Land for people from the both country. I really worry about a possible chaos after the page is unprotected. I think semi-protected status might be way better than just protected because the new probation policy seems very strict and some people might not log in to avoid their name being shown and banned from editing if they violate the policy. Many ip users take an advantage of their anonymousness and every ip address changes several times a day.--Appletrees (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to try semiprotection first per Appletrees. I certainly agree about Opp2 & Odst. I don't know enough about Cloiwnfaceto comment but ~I'm willing to defer to your knowledge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think clownface has been doing anything. Its odst and opp2 that have been scratching each other for the past couple months. Good friend100 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected

Okay, I've reduced protection to semiprotection (which I suggest should be kept in place until further notice.) The old rules against edit-warring will remain in place. Moreover, I will strongly recommend to all the old combatants, but especially to User:Opp2 and User:Odst, to refrain from editing the article for at least the next few months. Every instance of disruptive editing – including not just edit-warring, but also all forms of blatantly tendentious, unbalanced editing, and reckless degrading the article's quality through bad English – will be met with immediate topic bans without further warning. Please see WP:ARBLIANCOURT. In addition, if I find anybody editing disruptively here who is also simultaneously involved in edit-warring on other Korean-Japanese disputed articles, they'll be fully blocked for long periods. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Clownface should be refrained too.--Opp2 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just accept your block from editing this article? It takes more than one administrator to keep you and odst on hold, now your demanding a block on another user for a venue to attack him/her? Seriously, people have been telling you to stop with your crap, and you don't care at all until it takes an administrator to treat you and odst like little children for you to stop your nonsense. Or is because of your poor english? That too, if your english is so bad that you don't understand any of the rules, why are you here in the first place? Just accept and stop for a month. I haven't been here in a while, but I'm happy that this rotten piece of trash they called an article has been reduced to what we have now and I'm glad that we won't have you or odst starting up again. I'm glad about all this whole deal and whats happening to this article right now. Good friend100 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

New Rule of Conduct box

I just added some tag to the New Rule of Conduct thread in order to differentiate other threads and the policy. If anyone thinks it's color is not satisfying, feel free to change it. I couldn't help just making the rule in the box because many new editors fall out from the article without fully reading them. --Appletrees (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. I think we need to rewrite the rule box to reflect the current situation. Fut Perf: do you have any thoughts? Is it time to archive and start the talk page fresh? Suggested rules of engagement below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rules of Engagement

This article is under article probation following a decision by the arbitration committee. Any user who disrupts this article is liable to an immediate article ban by any Administrator without warning. To avoid running into trouble you are reequested to observe the following rules of engagement at all times

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

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

• No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit. (This does not apply to obvious vandalism).

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

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

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

• Tendentious, overlong or uncontructive repetative arguing on the talk page is not permitted. Disruptive edits of this kind may be removed by an administrator and persistant offenders are liable to being banned from further contribution to the article.

If you wish to discuss these conditions you should leave a message below or contact an administrator familiar with the history of this article. Currently this includes ?? Fut perf; Spartaz (perhaps) and/or ??????

Proposal for change to the Liancourt Rocks article

As I mentioned before there is a historical error in the information regarding Japan's involvement in Korea at the time Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks.

Wiki reads:

"..Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate..:

It should read "Japan incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1904, about a year after she occupied Korea under the Japan~Korea Protocol of February 23, 1904.

Japan's military occupied all of Korea (including nieghbouring Ulleungdo) shortly after the Russo~Japanese War broke out in early 1904.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Protocol_Signed_Between_Japan_and_Korea_of_1904

It's a real shame how the Liancourt Rocks page has been butchered recently. I put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into finding some of the original Japanese maps from JCAR's website. Whoever dreamed up this plan definitely "threw the baby out with the bathwater..."

What a shame....Clownface (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The main page appears to be correct in dating the Japanese incorporation, or annexation, in 1905 rather than 1904; see chronology at Shimano Prefecture site. Although tendentious in its account of the legal consequences, its dating of Japanese actions in 1904-06 in relation to these islands seems to be correct.

Far from a 'butchering', the imposition of peace on this article has rendered it both readable and usable. If more maps are desired, they can be suggested on this page. ariwara (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ariwara, the problem isn't with the timeline of Liancourt Rocks "annexation" The problem is with the discrepancy between the occupation of Korea (Japan - Korea Protocol) vs the Japan - Korea Protectorate Treaty.

Korea was militarily occupied on Feburary 8th, 1904, she was coerced into allowing the Japanese military to occupy the peninsula around three weeks later on February 23rd 1904. Korea was declared a protectorate on November 17th, 1905.

What I mean is Korea was occupied before Liancourt Rocks was annexed. Liancourt Rocks was annexed by Japan to link with the navy's telegraph systems already in place on Korea's Ulleungdo Island to Matsue Japan and then Sasaebo Naval base to the south.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/overall-telegraph-map-1905-1.jpgClownface (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh stop bickering. Honestly, I don't see any of the older editors here. I'm out, have fun fighting with japanese nationalists. Good friend100 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bye bye, friend~ However, please be civil. Like the old Korean song, "갈때는 말없이~" (When you leave, without saying~) is required sometimes. --Appletrees (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is fantanstic looking!

I visit it every few months just to see what's going on and was shocked this time. A concise, succinct treatment of the subject with none of the previous substandard edit-war material that made disinterested parties cringe. A kudos to the editors and admins who have brought this about. Maybe it could become the shortest featured article ever.

I can't believe I'm suggesting this but I am a pessimist (note the permalink above). If the urge to wage war in namespace recurs, what about creating an article like Liancourt Rocks territorial dispute à la Sea of Japan naming dispute to siphon the negative qi? — AjaxSmack 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise is the one who deserves the credit for the rewrite. Thanks for the suggestion about the siphon but I think there will be no further significant disputes with this article. Article Probation means that any disruptive editors will be ejected and banned from editing the article very quickly and we will, I'm sure, lock this down very quickly if warfare resumes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Liancourt Rocks Map.png"

"Image:Dokdo Map.png" neutral is not the file name. "Image:Liancourt Rocks Map.png" in the file name of a proposed rewrite.--222.158.49.76 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The file name of that image is a purely technical issue, it's not part of the article content. You are not supposed to even see it when reading the page. I see no issue there. People upload images under all sorts of more or less random names, that's life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt in France

{editprotected} As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance {{Redirect|Liancourt|the town in France|Liancourt, Oise}}. Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. Markussep ^Talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good job for creating the French town page. I'd say, since the town is actually "Liancourt", and the rocks are never called "Liancourt" alone but always "Liancourt Rocks", there should be no objection to having the town at the simple title. Let's have a quick check if there are links to it that need changed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All incoming links to Liancourt already were to the French village, not the islands. I've therefore redirected Liancourt to Liancourt, Oise as requested. If you want to move Liancourt, Oise to Liancourt simple (depends on what the preferred format is for French villages?), give me a call, you'll need an admin for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are no other places with the same name, the preferred format is the simple name, without the department. Could you move it there? I'll add a dablink later. Thanks. Markussep ^Talk 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't actually see much of a need for a dablink on either side, personally. It doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're probably right, if people don't know whether they're rocks, islets or islands they can search for Liancourt anyway. I'll leave it then. Markussep ^Talk 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20