Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the article had been at "Liancourt Rocks" before the 2005 vote. Then someone moved it to "Dokdo" without discussion. Rather than simply reverting, a vote was held with three options: restore to Liancourt Rocks, leave at Dokdo, or move to Takeshima. The result was to restore to Liancourt Rocks. --Reuben 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose --Tiii 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)The name "Liancourt Rocks" cannot be given to a South Korean island, despite the fact that it does provide a solution to the Korean-Japanese "dispute" over the Dokdo Islets. Only the owner has the right to name a territory, in this case, the South Korean administration. The name of "Liancourt Rocks" is a western reference to Dokdo and no more.

There is no vote at present. --Isorhiza 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiii, Germany is called Germany not Deutchland in English, would you argue that the Germans as the "owners" of Germany, can insist on English speakers calling Germany Deutchland? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody argue against.I would like to move from Dokdo to Liancorut Rocks.Would Someone like to aruge against this wrote ?--Forestfarmer 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Philip, your Germany model does not work. We are not talking about a name of a country. We're talking about a physical area of a country that isn't well known in the first place @ English language. Additionally, Liancourt Rock is a result of European effort to map the entire world. (Wikimachine 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

assuming taht Japan(Takesima) and Korea(Dokto)is disputing now,I think that third party should use third name when it is exist.--Forestfarmer 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The arguement regarding Germany does apply since there are also many regions or cities within countries which are also given English names. e.g. Vienna, Munich, Bombay, etc. Regardless of this though the name should simply be the name which is most used in English. I wouldn't think many English references exist however so using the Korean Dokdo (which was also used by Japan) seems quite fair. --Kuan 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Takeshima and Dokdo are disputed names over hotly currently disputed territory. Any argument made to the legitimacy of one name seems equally valid for the other. Since Liancourt Rocks is a neutral and accepted name (for a long time) favoring neither side, I fail to see how it can be titled anything but "Liancourt Rocks", with redirects for both Takeshima and Dokdo (with its various spellings) pointing here. If someone has another name that is NOT Takeshima or Dokdo that is superior to Liancourt Rocks, PLEASE state it. Titling the article with either other name applies legitimacy that supporters of the other name will not fail to express. Furthermore, due to the controversy, "Liancourt Rocks" is the name most often used when writing about this territory in international treaties in English. What's more, it's unusual to find one of the disputed names without the other right behind it in articles NOT originating from Korea or Japan. LactoseTI 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this hypocrisy act. Because South Koreans are telling a lie. It is necessary to do the investigation and consideration first of all, and to pursue the contradiction point of South Korean's speech and behavior. The South Korean is not calm. The profit in which honor is not accompanied believing the propaganda of the government is pursued. And, a bad action is not reflected on. The South Korean should throw away "One's own rule" and cooperate with countries of the world.--Tamayura 23:00, 17 july 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you trying to say. What lie are the S. Koreans here telling? Good friend100 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.Takeshima is Japanese territory. This fact is clear in the various historical books.

But South Koreans does not recognize. Because they does not know fact history. Please,you write to fact.

Could you sign your name. (Wikimachine 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

The islets are less commonly known as the "Liancourt Rocks" in English.???

In English newspapers the islets are commonly written as "Liancourt Rocks". See CIA fact book [3]

Mythologia: If you wouldn't mind writing new topics on the bottom of the talk page. I moved it here if that's okay with you. If you look in the archives at the top of this page, I would assume #5, then you will see this has been discussed. I believe that Dokdo is more common based on search engine results. Tortfeasor 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

mythologia, "less commonly" is a relative term. it means "not as many as" the others. that means comparing the how many times each name occurs. the cia factbook counts as one. we can each give second, third, and fourth examples, but that still won't answer whether something is more or less common. if there are 10 sources that use x for every one source that uses y, then it is accurate to say y is less common than x. please ask questions here if this is not clear. thanks. Appleby 05:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not just the CIA who use the name Liancourt Rocks so does The Times:

• Japan set for clash over islands The Times April 20, 2006 "Seoul promptly dispatched 18 coastguard ships and a surveillance aircraft to the Liancourt Rocks, promising a “stern” response to any perceived intrusion."
• Swarm of protest over islands The Times May 03, 2006 "...the islands, which are called Tokdo in Korean, Takeshima in Japanense and the Liancourt Rocks in English. South Korea has occupied the islands since 1954. (AP)"

The BBC uses the phrase (my emphasis): "Known as Dokdo (Solitary islands) in Korea, Takeshima (Bamboo islands) in Japan. Also known as Liancourt rocks " (South Koreans vent fury at Japan 18 March, 2005) --Philip Baird Shearer 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

even at the bbc, try their search. most articles only use dokdo/takeshima, while only some articles mention the alternative liancourt, only after mentioning dokdo/takeshima. the current version does accurately indicate that liancourt is an alternate, but less common, name. Appleby 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby you wrote in the history of the page "yes, "sometimes" does give you more specific, accurate, verifiable information" please provide the reliable published source from which your non original research comes from, othewise I think we should go with the BBC as a source on this --Philip Baird Shearer 23:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

irrespectible of what is common name in English speaking community? probably, japanese won't insist so strongly to the name Takeshima, or Senkaku Islands, or even Honshu Island, if what is used is the common English name, because this is English Wikipedia. I guess that it is a kind of expansionism, but I cannot find good verifiable source yet. --Isorhiza 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially the title...can you explain it? thanks Good friend100 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you don't understand. I simply pointed out the fact that Korean want the Liancourt Rocks to be called Dokto. Korean want the Sea of Japan to be called East Sea (of Korea). Korean want the Tsushima Basin to be called Ulleung Basin. Korean want the Tsushima Island to be called Daemado. Korean want China to write Seaul as 首尔 not 漢城. These are all verifiable and not my opinion or research. What is next? Will they need the Pacific should be called the East Ocean (of Korea)? Will they need Eurasia Continent to be called West Continent of Korea or Korean equivalent word? --Isorhiza 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is a vile description of a neighboring country in which you are probably related to. This is unacceptable behavior that I would have least expected from the mouth of a Japanese.

Oyo321 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you feel is none of Wikipedia's business. --Isorhiza 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right that Koreans are trying to name everything to their advantage. But its just a subconsiousness of Koreans. Do you know information about the Imjin War or the Japanese colonization of Korea in 1910.

The Japanese goal of invading Korea was the basis of both these invasions.

Koreans suffered from the Japanese in both the Imjin War and the colonization. Also, Japan has not formally apologized to Korea for war crimes in WWII.

Koreans believe that Japan is trying to invade Korea again in a different way (literally, this is obviously not true). They think that holding the right to territories or landmarks is a way of keeping Japan from "invading" Korea.

Think about what Japan has done in the past. Koreans are not selfish. Its just heavy patriotism that came from Japanese invasions. Koreans are not greedy and do not want to take other country's territories. Good friend100 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I know both invasions. But how you should edit Wikipedia is totally different problem. Imjin War was more than 400 years ago and that have no relationship with the current Wikipedia.

This is not related to Wikipedia, but I would like to point out that your comment that "Japan has not formally apologized to Korea for war crimes in WWII." is totally wrong. Japanese prime minister Murayama apologized officially and the government follows the position until now. All the textbooks of history teach about the war crimes in WWII. At least current Japanese government, and most of the political parties from left through the extreme right does not have any wish to invade Korea or any country. Past cannot be good reason to change English name to Korean name. --Isorhiza 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Isorhiza, you've gone too far. Who set the English names for those things you mentioned and when was that? And who complains about Koreans style name for them? Think about it. Are you really OK when they change the name of Senkaku island to an English name? You imply that Koreans are trying to call everything with Korean style names around Korea, but you are obviously exaggerating. Of course they don't want to change every name to those in Korean style. Dokdo is the biggest issue and there are several more (East Sea, etc), but not tens of them. And it is not to CHANGE. Some of their names can be legitimately called as-is in English, too, like Senkaku island. Cheju island has an English name, Quelpart, but nowadays nobody calls it Quelpart in English. So in this English wikipedia, Cheju island is Cheju island. I think that level of name conflict or custom of calling local name is everywhere in the world. Eurasia with West Continent of Korea? Are you serious with this example? Don't be ridiculous and don't be provocative. It doesn't go anywhere. --ginnre 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by your statement "Imjin War was more than 400 years ago and that have no relationship with the current Wikipedia." Do you mean the Imjin War has nothing to do with Wikipedia or do you mean the Imjin War has no relationship to this discussion?

Also, if the government is sorry then why is Koizumi still honoring the soldiers who have died commiting war crimes? Also, you say all the Japanese textbooks of history teach about Japanese war crimes in the past. Then why are Korean and Chinese people angry that Japanese textbooks distort history and demand changes? I know some Japanese students who still think America attacked Japan first in WWII and Pearl Harbor was just an excuse to attack Japan. I know a Japanese who thinks that America dropped the atom bomb first. If you think textbooks clearly write Japanese war crimes truthfully, then why are all the Koreans so angry about them?

The point is, I don't understand why you think Koreans want to name everything in their own way. Even though the facts that Korea wants all the names changed to their way, isn't that true? If someone is spelling your country's capital the wrong way, don't you want to ask for changes? If "Tokyo" was spelled "Tokeeyo" by America wouldn't you naturally want them to change their spelling of Tokyo? As you said "how do you feel is none of Wikipedia's business." Good friend100 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean both. Imjin War was because Toyotomi Hideyoshi wanted to expand his power to the penninsula 400 years ago, but his rule was soon defeated by Tokugawa Ieyasu and Tokugawa Shogunate continued 265 years. One of the most important policy of Tokugawa Shogunate was Seclusion laws from 1641 to 1853. This means there was no wish of expansion and invasion of the Peninsula for more than 200 years. Therefore, it is difficult to find relationship between Imjin War and expansionism of Imperial Japan after Meiji epoch. I welcome verifiable reference if you have, but is there any good reference which have enough basis of scientific research?

I don't mind if Tokyo is spelled in other way as long as it is common way in English speaking community, because this is English language version of Wikipedia. I believe most people in Japan has same opinion. Already "Japan" is not the exact word for the country in Japanese language. It is "Nihon" or "Nippon".

About Koizumi, I，personally, don't support his visit to Yasukuni. But it is true that prime ministers of Japan (even Koizumi) repeatedly apologized about the WWII officially, and it is the basic position of the government [4]. Textbooks teach the fact rather correctly

[5][6]. I don't know why Korean people are so angry. Maybe they don't know the truth. You know such a student, but there are always boys and girls who cannot learn anything from school. --Isorhiza 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a chill. Wikipedia's business is my business. Oyo321 00:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimachine's Replies

• About the Tsushima Basin, let's take a look at this map. There is Japan Basin, Yamato Basin, and Tsushima Basin. Notice that Tsushima Basin is within Korean territory. So, what does Japan want? To name every physical objects in Sea of Japan Japanese? I'd rather say Tsushima Basin is a new name & new move by the Japanese to counter their losses at Dokdo. It's definite that Korea has rightful claim to naming this body of water as Ulleung Basin.
• "Cheju island has an English name, Quelpart, but nowadays nobody calls it Quelpart in English. So in this English wikipedia, Cheju island is Cheju island. I think that level of name conflict or custom of calling local name is everywhere in the world." This is an example where Korean name dominates over English name -just because it's more frequent. And clearly, Dokdo outnumbers Takeshima by tenfold.
• As for the argument that Imjin War happened just because Toyotomi Hideyoshi wanted it, I disagree. Toyotomi's advisors strongly disagreed with the invasion. Plus, it seems that Japan changed its policy about expansionism b/c it exhausted its military during that war. Nonetheless, Japanese did create outrage and destruction in Korea. So, whether it was part of Japan's expansionism (~20th century) doesn't matter. (Wikimachine 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC))
• As for Koizumi's apologies, the best I've heard was "I deeply express regret..." junk. His actions do not reflect his words.(Wikimachine 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

You still don't understand why Koreans are angry? I explained all that above. Also, you still think that Japan has already "apologized officially"? Then why are all the Koreans and Chinese people so aggravated and screaming for an official apology. If Japan needs to find out how they need to apologize for their WWII crimes, then follow how Germany apologized.

Same for the textbooks. All those Koreans are angry at Japanese book editors for distorting history.

And again, "because this is English language version of Wikipedia". I hear this every time! Just because this is English Wikipedia, doesn't mean that Wikipedia cannot use "foreign" words. The internet is international. Not "America Online" and it is not restricted just to English speaking countries. There are thousands of words that we use that are borrowed from Spain, Latin, France, etc etc. Good friend100 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here because the title has been mentioned in a 2 channell thread. It appear that the page's non-NPOV is more to Japan's advangage. Keep up good work, Korean commrades. As always, you guys are doing splendid job (for Japan). Oh, I'm also curious when someone own up and admit that TKD is a Korean Karate. So long guys. V(^_^) Vapour

How bias you are, Vapour. Have you thought of it from the other way around? A huge chunck of what we know today as Japanese culture was introduced by Koreans. So if that was the case, wouldn't karate be the Japanese tae kwon do? Don't agree? What about pasta. Is that the Italian ramen? Plus, Korea is not asking for the world to re-change the name of the sea of water to the east of Asia and what some of us know today as the "Sea of Japan" to the "Sea of Korea". All they want is for the western nations, and pretty much the world, to acknowledge that when the IHO 'officialised' the name "Sea of Japan", Korea was occupied and did not have any say in the matter. Even Japanese maps prints what some of us know today as the "Sea of Japan" as "朝鮮海 - Chosen Kai (chosen is/was the name of Korea) and named the current Pacific Ocean as the "Sea of Japan". And going on with the whole 'apology' thing... Don't understand why Koreans and Chinese are so outraged? Think of it this way. How would the Jews feel if the German Chancellor prayed at Hitler's grave (if he had one)? They would feel outsolutely outraged and the whole world would go on a rampage. So, what makes this different? Nothing. Stop saying you don't understand why Koreans and others are so outraged when your Prime Minster visits the shrine. And yes, the Japanese politicians have 'apologised'. But if that apology was sincere and honest, you would show it through your actions... and up until now, you haven proven to these countries that you are sincerely sorry for what has happaned. Now as for this page, it should be permanently moved from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo". Why? Well, let's look at the Senkaku Islands page. Although it is disputed between Japan (again) and China, the page uses the Japanese name, although it has an "unbias" English name. So with this in mind, and with that page setting a precedent, it is pretty obvious that this page be moved under "Dokdo" as its permanent name. -dandan xD 10:46 pm 14 Sep 2006 (AEST)

You are both misunderstanding Wikipedia naming policy. It doesn't matter who has the best claim. You are misunderstanding NPOV for names. The only thing that counts is the most common name amongst English speakers: 'Senkaku Islands' is clearly the most common name therefore it is the correct name for that article. It is difficult to see what is the most common name amongst English speakers for Dokdo/Takeshima therefore Dokdo is not the correct name. I have suggested Dokdo/Takeshima as the best solution:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

Macgruder 13

27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not archive current discussions

I just undid the Archive 5 because the oldest message in there was about 6 days old (going all the way back to June 22, 2006!). Please do not archive current discussions. Only archive discussions where the last post is at least two weeks old, though it's recommended that you do not archive more than once a month. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I archived the page because it was larger than 32K (see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page "Additionally, large talk pages are a burden for users with slow Internet connections, and some users may not be able to edit pages larger than 32 kB because of browser page size limits."). I archived it using move which moves the page with history into the archive. I did this because on examining earlier archives, there were some irregularities and I did not want any accusations that the archive was not a fair one. You can not hide Archive 5 without hiding the history of the page. So please do not blank it again. If you had asked why I had done it before naking your changes then I could have explained this to you. I copied back the most recent conversation, the rest are now more than a week old and available in the archive for anyone else who needs them--Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No political discussions, please

Please keep the political rhetoric off Wikipedia. This is not the place to get in a fight (whther verbal or otherwise). Political discussions that have nothing to do with improving the articles here on WIkipedia will be deleted without notice. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not debate international relations (except as they specifically have to do with specific content in a specific article). Thank you for not posting political comments here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. let's keep the discussion about Dokdo, not about political relationship between Korea and Japan. The page is starting to tilt toward the latter... Deiaemeth 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it is very hard not to be political on this issue. Someone is vandalizing the article these days, again. ginnre 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is hard not to debate in a political sense. Koreans would obviously side with Dokdo and Japanese people would obviously side with Takeshima. Good friend100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's hard not to debate in a political sense. But it's easy not to debate political issue which is not related to this article. The discussion of "Koizumi's apology", "Why Koreans are angry" are not related to this article. So, we shouldn't talk about political issue like that. Gegesongs 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To keep the political rhetoric off Wikipedia, Why don't you move "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks"?

We shouldn't write article in "Dokdo" or "Takeshima". We need write article in "Liancourt Rocks", then "Takeshima" and "Dokdo" redirect to "Liancourt Rocks" . IP Addr:220.110.236.194(Japan) 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe over 80% of the discussion here has been on political issues. Good friend100 01:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (1)

Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)and disputed area between Korea(Dokdo) and Japan(Takesima).The islets are the "Liancourt Rocks" in English. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1] and control of the islands by "the Korean nation" but both countries have title. The islet's title is declared by Korea before Japan abandonment territory of Korea,is not included Dokto,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

avobe writing is my edit.I think more neutral writing than older .what do you think ?--Forestfarmer 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it could use some minor changes, because currently it doesn't flow very well. Perhaps if a native speaker of English could look at it... Also I don't think we'd be more neutral if we removed the fact that it's being controlled by S. Korea, since that's currently true. Rōnin 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not native and I'm not understand what you write.but buth country have titile and korea contral dokto now and both country accepted it.in these days,I think that Korean president forgot these fact.--Forestfarmer 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that your version is any more neutral than the current version. As far as I can understand it, it seems to place all the blame for the conflict on Korea; but it's hard to tell what is meant by sentences like "Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration." --Reuben 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On January 18, 1952 Japan was occupied but Japan have title of Takesima.but The South Korean President Syngman Rhee declared sovereignty over Dokdo with the Syngman Rhee line declaration one-sidely.then Takesima became disputed area.Japan don't abandon Takesima's right and title till now.--Forestfarmer 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm really not sure what you're getting at, except that you seem to want to support Japan's side. But it's not Wikipedia's job to decide this issue one way or another, just to describe the dispute. As far as I can understand your proposed version of the opening, it looks less neutral to me than the current version. --Reuben 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I make some sense with your opinion but the fact that the islets are known as the "Liancourt Rocks" in English not dokdo is clear in many news papers.Mythologia 06:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion. my opinion is " This dispute began since Korean declaration" and your opinion is "currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan".but Japan nerver claimed Takesima' right to korea .becouse Japan have Takesima's title.Japan's insistence is to stop controling of the islands by the Korean nation.It is next step that Japan claim abandom of Takesima's title to Korea after Korea to stop controing of Takesima.--Forestfarmer 12:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you do understand. The version you keep trying to put in is largely unintelligible in English. Please try to come to a consensus on the talk page before making controversial edits. We need the text to be neutral and clear. --Reuben 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my unintelligible writing in English.I would like to write readable always ever in English.but YOU DON'T READ MY WRITING IN ENGLISH.I must take a second look for Wikipedia in English.Wikipedia must read by many people in English.I take care to avoid such an error in thfuture in English.Could you tell me where is unintelligible sentence in English.I wouldn't like to write unreadable sentence in English.I only hope you provide me with a chance to write readable sentence in English.If you didn't educate me CLEARLY in English.My edit isn't unintelligible writing in English.--Forestfarmer 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Forestfarmer, I hope we can have a good discussion. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I was a bit peeved by the edit warring, and I let that come through. Sorry about that. I have been reading what you wrote here, so I don't know why you say "You don't read my writing in English." I take it that you may also be a bit frustrated by the language barrier here? OK, on to some of the things that are hard to understand: 1. "both countries have title." Usually title is a document that the seller gives you when you make a large purchase, like a car or a house. It's a public record showing that you bought something. I don't know where title would come in here, since nobody claims to have bought these islets. I think you mean something more like a claim, but I'm not sure. 2. Let me try to edit this next sentence, and you can see if my version matches your meaning: "Although Japan was required to renounce all claim to certain territories upon signing the peace treaty at the end of World War II, Dokdo was not listed among these territories." Is that a fair restatement of your proposed sentence? If so, I think it belongs in the appropriate section in the body of the text, not in the intro. 3. "Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration." This sentence is also hard to make out, but as far as I can tell, it has no function other than to cast blame on Korea. Therefore, it doesn't belong. --Reuben 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reuben,I'm happy to be able to have a good discussion.

1.[7]5[singular, uncountable] law:the legal right to have or own something:title to: He has title to the land.

I might have been using the technical term.I think that writing, "Right" was more comprehensible than "Title".Though the meaning is a little different but If you were misunderstood,I will rewrite it.

2."The islet's right is declared by Korea before Japan abandonment territory of Korea by Treaty of San Francisco."

3."Thus This dispute began ~" is user"Appleby" written in "Rusk document" wikipedia page and then both country have takesima' right.what do you think ? when did this disput begin ?--Forestfarmer 07:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm not a lawyer, so I may not know the usage in law. Usually I think of "title" as connected with some legally recognized proof of ownership, such as a document showing sale. What does it mean for both countries to have title, as you wrote? Surely only one can have the legal right to the islet. I think another term would be more clear.

2. Still not clear. Does this match your meaning? "In signing the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan was required to renounce all claim to certain territories. Korea had already claimed the islets as Korean territory before the signing of this treaty."

3. I can't find the comment by Appleby that you're referring to. Based on the plethora of ancient documents cited by both sides, I would say that there has been contention over the possession of Liancourt Rocks for centuries; but as the Liancourt Rocks and other islands have had a variety of names at different times, it's often difficult to be sure what island a given document is actually talking about. --Reuben 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1 you think that Surely only one can have the legal right to the islet.I think so.But both country accept each other right now.becouse the islet is disputed.

2."In signing the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan was required to renounce all claim to certain territories and Dokdo was not listed among these territories but Korea one-sidely declared the islets as Korean territory before the signing of this treaty to Japan." Do you understand meaning that both country accept each other right now ?

3 Sorry.I'm not native and I don't understand surely meaning.please describe One meaing on One sentence.but I don't discuss ancient histry with you.The islet Known as Dokto in Korea and as Takesima in Japan.naming is over.and I come to think of this dispute from now.If thought from view of international law,The dispute began since Korean declaration.because Commonly everyone think that Surely only one can have the legal right to the islet.It is only unclear before then.--Forestfarmer 07:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. While joint title to lands is certainly a possibility, and happens all the time amongst regular people, it's rather a rarity between nations, and I don't think that's what is happening here. Although disputed title might give some (temporary) interest in land to the party challenging the title between people, somehow I don't think it works that way between nations. In any case, it would be an error to state that in title disputes both parties have title. If anything, one party might have a lein on the title until the dispute is resolved, but usually on party or the other has actual title to the land rather than both. I don't know what is meant by both countries 'accepting' each other. Sorry. --Zonath 10:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologize me.I'm discussing with you.I might take advantage of the weakness.

well,I don't know what you are worrying.but Korea cannot get Takeshima's right ONLY by the Korean declaration on INTERNATIONAL LOW usually.but you want to know continuing of the fact ? I think that you ignoring the fact make you happy.--Forestfarmer 12:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (2)

I'm not native and I don't know meaning of "title" is not popular usually.Thus,I rewrite opening paragraph.I don't know others thinking what my opening paagrah is.I think about both country's opinion.I try to think again if someone complains more.--Forestfarmer 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. "both country accept each other right now." I don't get it. Of course neither country accepts the other's claim.

2. I am not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. That's why I tried to rewrite it, but you haven't let me know whether or not you found my version an acceptable restatement of what you want to say.

3. You mentioned a comment by Appleby, but I can't find the one you were referring to. Could you be more specific, perhaps by quoting Appleby's comment? Maybe that will help me understand what you want to say here. --Reuben 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1.it have misunderstading.because I rewrote "title" in "right".you didn't absorb meaning of "title".

Thus I rewrite my Opeing paragraph.

2.I I wrote in conformity with the historical fact.It is neutral.

3.Is it so?Then, I withdraw but Appleby worte "South Korea's request to resolve the dispute over Dokdo".but Then Takesima is not dispute on international low then.I think that Appleby want to know when this dispute began on international low.Thus I write.but if Korea want not to keep international low.I withdraw my Opening Paragraph.

I rewrote my Opening Paragraph.It meant withdrawing old version usually.Still, do you want to discuss it?--Forestfarmer 02:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1. We're facing a pretty strong language barrier. Since you've changed your paragraph, let's drop this point.

2. Your response here doesn't seem to go with what I wrote. You still haven't told me whether or not my restatement expressed your meaning.

3. Language barrier again, I really don't know what you're trying to say.

We can continue discussing this or not, as you like; but your paragraph certainly isn't acceptable as it is, and I'm certain it will be reverted if you try to put it in. --Reuben 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

rewrite:Srrroy,I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,The line was crowded or it is my looking mistake.

1.I don't know language barrier.where ? plese account for it more clearly.and You should also understand my theory a little.

2.What do you want to say?your sentence is terrible understood easily and is a painful thing revealed?Please do not blame you so much.

3.rewrite:Srrroy,I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.

The thing not participating in the discussion is usually approved.--Forestfarmer 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (3)

Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)and disputed area between Korea(Dokdo) and Japan(Takesima).The islets are the "Liancourt Rocks" in English. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1] and control of the islands by "the Korean nation" but a territory in Japan on international low. The islet's is declared by Korea as a territory before Japan abandonment territory of Korea,is not included Dokto,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

announce:I would like to edit this writing to opening paragraph.do anyone argue this opning paragraph ?--Forestfarmer 12:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, same objections as before. I expect that this would be reverted. Actually, this version is even less neutral, because it explicitly endorses a Japanese point of view by saying "but a territory in Japan on international low." --Reuben 15:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were not quite satisfid with above paragraph.more clearly write the point.Are you really discuss with me ?I am felt only in putting off the conclusion. Rusk documents and Treaty of San Francisco account for Takesima's territory in Japan on international low.if you thought that It is not neutral. you have to account.--Forestfarmer 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you wrote above isn't neutral at all, though. It simply agrees with Japan. Please just leave it as it is for now. If you feel that any part of it isn't neutral enough, could you please state why? Rōnin 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Srrroy,I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have to argue with you about whether Korea or Japan has a stronger claim to the Liancourt Rocks. We just need to write an article describing the dispute, not adjudicate it. Your version says "but a territory in Japan on international low," which simply endorses the Japanese view. That's the opposite of neutral. --Reuben 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, please Write opposite veiw on International low clearly and simply.I would discuss then.--Forestfarmer 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My views on international law are irrelevant. So are yours. This isn't a legal forum, it's an encyclopedia. --Reuben 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understood meaning of words but I feel your terrible confidence.Sad to write,I think The difference of the idea to International Law between South Korea and Japan then make This disput.Do you want to say korea don't keep international low ? It is exposed Korea breaking International low.When discussing it by an unreasonable theory.You should write though South Korea should observe International Law.--Forestfarmer 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (4)

To start this article with either: "Takesima are islets in the Sea of Japan" or "Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan", expresses a non-WP:NPOV when there is an acceptable English alternative which is not derived from an Japanese or Korean word. As it say at the start of WP:NPOV Policy page:

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

That these two words can generate so much conversation on the talk page of the article, from people originating from these two countries, is a clear indication that to call the islets Dokdo or Takesima is not considered neutral in either country. So in my opinion the article should start:

Liancourt Rocks are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)...

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see.rewrited.Please write when a grammar and a word, are found. I am not a native. --Forestfarmer 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Liancourt Rocks known in English are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is known as the East Sea in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are known as Dokdo in, and Japan,The islets are known as Takesima in.Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1].
Control of the islands by the South Korean government but a territory in Japan on international law. The islet's is declared by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandon a territory of Korea,is not included The islets,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

reannounce:I would like to rewrite opening paragraph in this writing .do anyone argue this opning paragraph ?--Forestfarmer 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Didn't you see the objections above? Just because you changed a few words here and there, doesn't mean all the previous objections no longer stand. I think you should leave writing the opening paragraph to someone else. Additionally, you now use a different name for the island(s) than the one used in the article. That discussion is a different discussion from this one. Most of the paragraph also has small errors or incomplete sentences which makes it hard to read. Please stop your attempts to singlehandedly come up with a new opening paragraph. It will not be accepted in its current form. Rōnin 13:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1.I answered ALL objections.Do you not quite satisfied with it?

2.[8]islet[countable] literary:a very small island

"islet" is difficult word admittendly.but the meaning is only one.and you aren't misunderstanding the meaning of words.and "islet" meaning explain from "island" more in detail.

3."Most of the paragraph also has small errors or incomplete sentences"please explain more clearly.

"Please stop your attempts to singlehandedly come up with a new opening paragraph."I answered ALL objections.

"It will not be accepted in its current form.".rewrite again:Srrroy,I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was rude earlier, but the paragraph you suggested isn't neutral and it's too hard to read. I'm sure you answered the objections above, but that doesn't remove the problem. Rōnin 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

1."I'm sorry I was rude earlier,"when you apologized,I am embarrassed.we are discussing now.

2."but the paragraph you suggested isn't neutral" explain more concretely.

3."it's too hard to read."explain more more more concretely.

4." but that doesn't remove the problem"explain more more more more concretely.

It is easy to complain. However, it ends by a mere complaint if it doesn't write CONCRETELY.--Forestfarmer 00:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (5)

reannounce　again:I would like to rewrite opening paragraph in this writing .If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY.I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.and It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.--Forestfarmer 11:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want a more concrete explanation, but the fact is your version is felt by myself and Reuben to be biased (agreeing with the Japanese viewpoint) and hard to read, because of some incomplete sentences and small grammatical errors. If you disregard these objections and unilaterally change the opening paragraph, I believe that would be considered vandalism, and reverting it would be justified. I wish you'd take the time to discuss what you disagree with in the current opening paragraph instead of completely rewriting it. Rōnin 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

rewrite:I don't understood meaning of words but I feel your terrible confidence.
but I understood that you don't understand this discuss.Think it is welcome because I explain.Cannot you concretely write by itemizing it like this. --Forestfarmer 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
current ver.
Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima).The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles, and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".[1]

• "Dokdo are islets"(Liancourt Rocks known in English )POV
  
• "Sea of Japan (East Sea)"(The East Sea known only in Korea)POV
  
• currently controlled and administered by South Korea(Liancourt Rocks is a territory in Japan on international law and the area is disputed on international law when the Syngman Rhee line was declared)POV
• supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation"(Please do not write happily Rogue state's supports.South Korea seems this kind.and they wrotet "supports control" without writing, "supports administered".Do you think this meaning?I cautioned,and I would like to delete.If you want to leave it,I don't edit.I think that South Korea becomes the puppet of North Korea.)my caution

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

• It is historically opposite.I have not edited it yet.POV--Forestfarmer 07:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  

and"because of some incomplete sentences and small grammatical errors"EXPLAIN MORE CONCRETELY.--Forestfarmer 01:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And We should be change the opening paragraph to Forestfarmer's version.--Celldea 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you.but There is a little things to have to write.--Forestfarmer 10:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.please read this discussion and discuss before revert
• Please do not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

Liancourt Rocks known in English are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is known as the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are known as Dokdo in, and Japan,The islets are known as Takesima in.Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1]. Control of the islets by the South Korean government but a territory in Japan on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandon a territory of Korea,is not included The islets,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

Your suggestion is unacceptable because:

• The paragraph you're suggesting is not in correct English.
• It also clearly supports Japan's point of view and opposes Korea's.

Rōnin 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.

but

The paragraph you're suggesting is not in correct English.(write the sample by itemizing it)

It also clearly supports Japan's point of view and opposes Korea's.(write The sample by itemizing it)

why you engage in serious discussion ? I'm tired because I have to write same words again and again.If you found the writing mistake.you have to write the point usually.If you found the not neutral sentence.you have to write the point usually.but they wrote only "the opening paragraph have same mistake" or "only Japanese view" or "opposes Korea's".

It is vandalism only to complain my suggestions.why do you discuss with me ?your writing only complain.Cannot you write a productive sentence?--Forestfarmer 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then stop writing the same thing again and again. You understand what I'm saying just fine, and still you're ignoring it. Your actions here will not be accepted. Rōnin 11:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"stop writing the same thing again and again."write "the same thing" concretely

"still you're ignoring it."What is "it"?write the sample concretely by itemizing it.

"Your actions here will not be accepted."wirte concretely

If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, should you propose altering the opening paragraph again, I will oppose it for the same reasons I stated above. From now on, I will not repeat my arguments, I will simply revert it if I see you vandalising it. I've already stated my reasons above, and you should be well aware of them. Rōnin 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"I will oppose it for the same reasons I stated above."

write "the same reasons I stated above." concretely

"From now on, I will not repeat my arguments, I will simply revert it if I see you vandalising it. I've already stated my reasons above, and you should be well aware of them. "

you don't reply my question and you don't wirte the reason.and you insist that you revet my opening paragraph and The reason is insisted above. I don't understand your insistance.basically,If I rewrite my writing to Opening paragraph.you vandal the sentence.If I don't know the reason.

you should write the reason concretely by itemizing it.I cautioned.--Forestfarmer 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (6)

The opening paragraph is fine, the way it is (after that gruesome war over the name of Dokdo/Takeshima.) Good friend100 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks.It seems to have exhausted both parties' opinions.May I rewrite opening paragraph to my version truly?--Forestfarmer 08:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find any problem in your opening paragraph.--Celldea 15:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That opening paragraph would certainly be reverted, for the same reasons as before. --Reuben 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody please state the reasons why Forestfarmer's opening paragraph is so wrong? I have been watching this discussion and it is getting pretty messy. Good friend100 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's not in correct English.
• It also clearly supports Japan's point of view and opposes Korea's.

Rōnin 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

you only complain for my suggestion.you are asking for trouble.I don't not writing it to explain in detail.I'm writing to explain concretely by itemizing the example.

if you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING--Forestfarmer 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph is perfectly fine as it is. Also, there are several grammatical errors. I think the best way to solve this is by keeping the current opening paragraph the way it is. All the information in the first paragraph are true. Good friend100 23:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Forestfarmer is the one proposing to change it. Rōnin 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you still want to say something?You should not make a fool of the discussion so much.--Forestfarmer 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey we don't need to call each other bad names. I'm not trying to side with one side, but the current paragraph is NPOV. Also, we don't have any of that "Liancourt Rocks" stained all over it. The article may seem POV since the title is Dokdo and the beginning paragraph clearly states that Dokdo is under Korean control and kind of gives the impression that Japan is merely claiming it. But there was a vote and the name is Dokdo.

I don't think we need to edit the first paragraph. Good friend100 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Liancourt Rocks" is disputed area now.and "Liancourt Rocks" is a Territory in Japan on international law.Third party should use third name when it is exist. "a vote" worthy like any? and what is "the name" ?--Forestfarmer 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you do not know the situation clearly. "Dokdo is territory under Japan"? then why did the vote go against the Takeshima side? I thought there were quite a few Japanese editors.

A vote might not be as worthy as an international decision (from the UN for example) but there was a vote several months back and we concluded that the article should be moved to "Dokdo".

Your "international law"? What international law are you talking about? Was it the San Francisco treaty? The San Francisco treaty did not mention anything about Dokdo but it clearly ordered Japan to return all territorial lands they conquered. I have heard some editors say that Dokdo is Japanese territory because it was never mentioned in the treaty. But, it stated all lands taken, which included Dokdo.

The "it was never mentioned" thing can be challenged because if Dokdo was not mentioned and it was Japanese territory, then by default, all the Korean islands not mentioned must be Japanese territory as well. That is obviously not true. Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that it is automatically Japanese territory.

Liancourt Rocks is not the right name. Read the past archives. Good friend100 01:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know other Japanese editer's thiking.and this article's name is not relate opening paragraph.also article's name maight be changed.

see Rusk documents.from this documents,SF treaty don't address Takesima becouse The documents reject korean request that Japan should renounce islands of Takesima.do you understand ? and "all the Korean islands not mentioned must be Japanese territory as well."yes,that's right.you understood international law.the Korean territory must be ceded from Japan.meaning of "cede" is that both country accept that decision on international law.Thus SF treaty describe a Korean territory in detail.

"article 2 Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. "

the meaning of above is ceding the territory that Japan amalgamated with Korea and include the island of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet in the ceded territory in especial.

do you understand ?--Forestfarmer 03:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, then, if the Rusk documents explicitly state that Dokdo is "Japanese territory", then it must be a powerful weapon for Japan, wouldn't it? If it is so powerful, then why did the vote go against your side?

"Both countries accept the international law"? What do you mean? If Korea accpeted the international law, then it would have given up Dokdo.

When Japan illegally annexed Korea (thanks to Yi Wan-yong 이완용, the Japanese sympathizer), they got all of Korea. Dokdo was Korean territory and after Japan lost WWII, the SF treaty forced Japan to return all territories they captured. I explained it above, just because it doesn't state Dokdo, it doesn't mean that Dokdo is Japanese territory. Then, by default, all the Korean islands not mentioned must still be Japanese territory.

If you still didn't know, there are thousands of islands of Korea's shores. Does that mean all these islands are Japanese territory? No. I don't think you understand what I am talking about.

The first paragraph should be left the way it is. It clearly states that Dokdo is under Korean control.

You should remember that Japan is merely claiming Dokdo for more economical reasons, rather than historical facts. There are possible gas reserves around Dokdo, and because Japan's industrialized centers consume a lot of energy, Dokdo is special to them. Check out sources from both Korean and Japanese sources. There are more Korean sources that date back further.

If you think you must even change the title of the article, then put up a vote. Good friend100 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"So, then, if the Rusk documents~"It is unrelated to the discussion.

""Both countries accept the international law"? What do you mean?"I don't write the sentence like this.

"When Japan illegally ~"you saw Rusk documents? Takesima was a territory of Japan.and SF treaty don't adress Takesima.because U.S.government thought that Takesima is a territory of Japan.over.Rusk documents Excerpt:

"The final treaty did not address Dokdo. Because Rusk rejected the South Korean request that Japan should renounce islands of Dokdo and Parangdo (an imaginary island) by as a consequence of the peace treaty"

"If you still didn't know,~"Japan ceded the territory that Japan annexed with Korea and include the island of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet in the ceded territory especially by SF treaty.

"You should remember that~"[9]Both Countris are the oil crisis situations when thinking about an economical scale.but I'm not discussing a history of takesima.I am only writing Takeshima's current state. a current state is above writing so.

and election is not doing.--Forestfarmer 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-notice!

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.please read this discussion and discuss before revert
• Please do not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

Liancourt Rocks known in English are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is known as the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are known as Dokdo in, and Japan,The islets are known as Takesima in.Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1]. Control of the islets by the South Korean government but a territory in Japan on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandon a territory of Korea,is not included The islets,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

opening paragraph (7)

Forestfarmer, in short, I think you're cling on to too a trivial thing to try to convert the opening paragraph in favor of Japan (and it is so now). Former version was way better and it was a result of good discussion. Why do you try to convert that? I never heard of so called rusk documents. Is it really so important evidence for you? and for others, too? I followed the link you had in your writing to see what this rusk documents is. Well indeed it says Liancourt Rocks is Japanese territory, but strangely enough, these days, nobody refers to this document regarding the Dokdo/takeshima problem. Korea has rich history regarding Dokdo since several hundreds years ago, and Japan might do so, too, but the document strangly denied all the connection of Korea to Dokdo. I don't understand this point and at best, this documet is simplay wrong in its argument for Japan. Current position of the US is neutral as you can see below;

"U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island issue has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably." (Joseph Yun, U.S. Embassy Political Minister-Counselor in Seoul comments on March 16, 2005)[3] (from rusk documents)

If the US was right at that time, why does the US have this position now? And do you really think that this faulty small document has the whole authority to say once and for all about Dokdo? It looks like only you do so. Don't trivilize the whole context and history. If you didn't know about the current US position, it's your negligence and if you knew it before, your argument is not sincere by hiding the current US position. --ginnre 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Dokdo has NOT BEEN a dispute area until quite recently at least internationally and even in Japan. Most Japanese don't know about this Takeshima. Another Takeshima island in another Japanese prefacture is better known. It is the current Japan (or Koizumi goverment) to make fuss about it to MAKE Dokdo a disputed area. The desciption of CIA world fact book about Dokto has changed more and more in favor of Japan's view. It now says it is extensively disputed area, but it didn't decribe Dokdo that way before. In that sense, the name Liancourt rocks itself is favorable to Japan, because the island has been widely known as Dokdo before, if it were known. To get out of that name is already a success for Japan. That's why many Japanese are generaaly favorable to the name of Liancourt Rocks. They say it's neutral, and it seems so, but it IS NOT, as nobody calls Cheju islands Quelpart nowadays. Once it got out of Dokto, the next step from Liancourt Rocks to Takeshima is much easier. All this long effort would be meaningless if the rusk document were so decisive and strong evidence for Japan. They are not fool and they know the document is almost nothing, and that's why I never heard about the document. I ask to revert to the previous version before your one. --ginnre 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So,I wouldn't discuss Takesima history.It don't fit opening paragraph.bcause that history is so long.I would like to discuss the position of takesima now.from that Point of view,The Rusk documents is very important.because the documents dominate Takeshima's belonging on SF treaty.and U.S. policy is not neutral but only not take a position.if it says briefly,U.S. is telling it not to involve U.S. in the Takeshima dispute.Is this difference understood? So well,but You need not understand.You must think that U.S. is neutral from your pont of veiw.I only writing that Takeshima is a territory in Japan and South Korea is only controling.when I see from the viewpoint of on international law.I think that thinking on international law is neutral.Do you understand my theory?

from your thinking,Is disputed area certified by public trust? It's strange. you are misunderstanding.because Takesima is disput area on internaitonal law when Korea declar Syngman Rhee line.

A lot of Japanese dislike pressing the proper noun,they are using,against the person who uses a different language.because it is not an act that the civilization country person does.Japanese dislike to be a barbarian.Thus Japanese use "Takesima" usually but they write "Liancourt Rocks" when Japanese write in the article.by the way,this page name is "Dokto" now.Do you understand what Japanese thinks of tKorean ?If South Korea is an advanced country, the action becomes an advanced country, too.--Forestfarmer 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I already understood what you mean. and I don't misunderstand much as you claim. What I try to tell you is that the rusk document is faulty one and you cannot regard it as a vital evidence for Japan to claim Dokdo her territory. I never heard that Japanese government uses it as an important evidence in favor of Japan. Have you heard about that? Why do you cling on to it? How many people around you support your view? Please answer thoese quetions otherwise I don't think your claim is any strong to change the opening paragraph. I told you that this document's decision was wrongly based on the claim that Korea never intended to claim the island to her. If it is wrong and it were so big a problem for Korea to show that Dokdo is her territory, Korea would have renegotiated with the US long time ago. They didn't and that means that document only does not make anything. I wanted answer for this quetion, but you are talking about other irrelevant things like babarian and civilization. So are you telling that Korea is a babarian country and Japan civilized one? That's old and well known (and very arrogant) view of some Japanese since Meiji era. They thought Japan came out of babarian state with western civilization and the other Asia remained babarian. I'm surprised that so many Japanse STILL think that way. If you still think so, I cannot help you. It won't help you much. Think about why Japanese are regarded as arrogant many times. --ginnre 14:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that internatinal law you're refer to is very mysterious. As far as I know, Dokdo was not disputed until recently. Japan just kept it to herself that Dokdo is her territory. Korean government officially has been saying and says that Dokdo is not disputed. It is Japan to try to make it known as disputed are and these days she has some success. One thing is that almost forgotten name Liancourt Rocks revived and it looks like the name has been widely used, which is false! Please make sure this point. What international law you're talking about? Is there an international law that applies to Japan only? Tell me. --ginnre 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a mind to do you as the word play and you may not use ward "understand" easily. I understand that It is different that we agree with each insistence.

I reply from your questions.

1. 1. 1. about Rusk documents.your question is why I insist Rusk documents' meaning strongly and why other Japanese don't write about it.the answer is Rusk documents explaining Japanese normal insist.So,Takesima is a Japanese territory but Korea is controlling Takesima now illegally on international law.Korean don't accepted this insist.Thus Japanese insist SF treaty or Rusk documents.Usually Japanese insist SF treaty only.but I only complement SF treaty by Rusk docuemnts.
      2. about when Takesima dispute was begin.Korean write usually "Takesima is not disputed" or "Takesima have be disputed recently because Koizumi~".but Japanese think about above. Takesima is a Japanese territory but Korea is controlling Takesima now illegally on international law.but I think that you(usual Korean) may be not know international law.Japanese knew international law on meiji era.then The Japanese was done an awful thing. because Japanese don't knew international law.Thus Japanese know international law usually and Japanese know the country is done an awful when the country break international law. I think that Korean should know international law soon.
      3. about Takesima naming problem.third party should use third name when it is exist.a babarian should hunted.Dokto is not used widely.only your looking appropriate article.You should have broad outlook.

over--Forestfarmer 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You said 'a babarian should be hunted'? Now I'm starting to doubt your sanity. Is this the civilized way of thinking? I hope you didn't say it in earnest. Anyway, I did my research, and found out what this international law means. I'll tell you in a civilized manner how you are just unilateral und your view is not acceptable.

Now you step back from the rusk document to SF treaty. These two are very different. But you knew that it is easier to claim Dokdo to Japan based on the rusk document, although it is not well known and wrong, because it explicitly showed that the US denied the Korean request to include Dokdo in the SF treaty. It is, however, harder to claim Dokdo to Japan with SF treaty because Dokdo is not mentioned in the treaty. That's why you cling on to the rusk document. Am I right?

The SF treaty itself cannot be interpreted in a clear way, as you would know it. Let me refer to the references [2] and [9] in the article;

When the US composed the draft of the 'SF treaty' for the allies, it included substantive enactment that Dokdo (Liancourt rocks) was a Korean territory from the 1st (1947/3/20) to 5th (1949/11/2) draft. When noticing it, Japan lobbied through American counselor Sebald to provide Dokdo as a radar base and a meteorological observatory for the US Air forces. As a result, the US marked that Dokdo was not Korean territory but Japanese on in 6th draft (1949/12/29). However, other allies such as the Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia did not agree to the 6th draft of the US. So Dokdo was not mentioned in 7th - 9th draft. The article 2 of 'SF treaty' ratified in SF in September 1951 stated that Japan recognized the independence of Korea and relegated all rights of sovereignty in Cheju-do, Geomun-do, and Ulleung-do to Korea. And Dokdo was left out of it. So, Japan has maintained that the Allies recognized Dokdo as a Japanese territory.

This claim by Japan is factually inaccurate. Since Dokdo is an annexed island to Ulleung-do, to record just Ulleung-do is that they recognized its annexed island Dokdo as a Korean territory automatically. As the same line, Cheju-do for example, has annexed island Udo and just record Cheju-do is that its annexed island Udo is automatically included as a Korean territory as well. Thus, the fact thousands of Korean islands were not specifically named in the treaty should not and does not mean they became the territories of Japan by default.

Moreover, since 'Agreement respecting the disposition of former Japanese territories' (1950), drafted in preparation for the SF treaty, stated Dokdo as a Korean territory in substantive enactment.

Accordingly, Dokdo clearly belongs to Korea under international law, and the international society except Japan has shared the same view.

Japan's lobby through Sebold was, as I mentioned earlier, deceitful in that Korea never intended to claim Dokdo to her territory and heavily influenced by Japan. Initially, the US didn't realize what the history of Dokdo has been like, so she just went ahead to put Dokdo to Japan influenced by the Japanese lobby, then with objection, stepped back to be neutral on that issue ever since. Furthermore, Korea at that time (1951) was in a war. She couldn't put an effort to deal with this problem. Is it still fair to claim Dokdo to Japan based on the SF treaty?

ポ―レストパ―マさん, もういいです. やめてください. --ginnre 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (8)

hi "ギンレ"さん,My handle name is "フォレストファーマー" and is not "ポ―レストパ―マ". Such a thing is trivial but I would answer your insistence. about "Takesima" naming,third party should use third name when it is exist.this simple insistence is not understand by yours.Janpanese would use "Takesima" but the discussion doesn't advance. The Japanese is submitting the compromise proposal without the method. but Korean is writing alway only "Dokto""Dokto""Dokto" . This doing is suitable for calling "barbrian".

about "Rusk documnents".So you wrtten is right.from "Rusk documents" and SF treaty,Takesima is a territory of Japan.ThusTakesima is a Japanese territory on international law.and South Korean President Syngman Rhee disregard it and declared the Syngman Rhee line and the sovereignty over Takesima illegally on international law.Thus " but Korea is controlling Takesima now illegally on international law."

about Takesima belonging on SF treaty,Rusk document

Rusk documents#Location on Internationa law "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time. (Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Precedent of International Law"Legal Status of Eastern Greenland."Permanent Court of International Justice gave "The natural meaning of the term is its geographical meaning as shown in the maps""

It is thought that it is not possible to interpret it of having abandoned Takeshima's title including it from the abandonment of Dagelet, and not having the fact that makes Takeshima Dagelet in an attached chart of SCAPIN at that time and an attached chart of the peace treaty draft of Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco in Dagelet.--Forestfarmer 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist, the SF treaty could be interpreted as you insist, but it can be interpreted as I wrote in a as convincing way as you argued, too. Considering that Japan lobbied hard, in a deceitful way, to delete Dokdo from the treaty draft while Republic of Korea just formed, having not much power and order after that long exploitation of Japan, and was in a war, I don't know how valid Japanese claim is. Please be aware that your insertion is unilateral (and arrogant considering the history) and cannot be much accepted outside of Japan. Is it a civilized world to accept such a claim based on deceitful efforts? In that sense, your claim that Korea is violating international law cannot be used to change the opening paragraph. It's that simple.--ginnre 16:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing about who is trying to make Dokdo disputed area. I checked Dokdo article in English wikipedia and 竹島 (島根県) in Japanese wikipedia. Since 1965, when Korea and Japan signed the Basic Relations Treaty, there has not been happening much regarding Dokdo for 30 years until the mid-ninties when Japan started to make real fuss about Dokdo, internationally. Actually there has not been much to write about that period. It is current and recent Japanese government who wanted to make Dokdo a disputed area, and in the course of that the seemingly harmless name of Liancourt Rocks revived. With Liancourt Rocks, Japan has nothing to lose but to gain, and Korea has nothing to gain but lose. Actually the name Liancourt Rocks has stong tie with Japan in old days. Japanese fishermen sometimes used the name already more than 100 years ago after some Japanese authority named it after a French Whale ship, Liancourt, pronounced as 'lyan-ko' or 'li-an-ku-ru'. (1849年：フランスの捕鯨船Liancourt号が竹島を発見し、リアンクール島と名付ける（以後、日本では、りゃんこ島、リアンクール岩とも呼ばれる). Takeshima was used after that name. So for Japanese, Liancourt Rocks is another familiar name for the islands. Maybe it is related to this Japanese ability of easily incorporating foreign words into their language. On the other hand, Dokdo was never called after the French whale ship in Korea. Dokdo has been just Dokdo. Maybe you knew that point already, so please stop pretending neutrality of that name. And please stop talking about Babarian. It just makes you ridiculous and, if serious, Japan imperialistic.

フォレストファーマーさん, もういいです. やめてください. --ginnre 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ギンレさん。日本語が難しいなら書かなくてもいいですよ。貴方の脳内ではポートレストパーマ＝フォレストファーマー＝forestfarmerなんでしょ。程度が知れますよ。

about "Takesima" disput,My insistence is based on International law(Vienna Convention on the Law Treaties and Precedent of CIJ). what is your insistence based on ?

and civilized countries follow only international law in usual.but If you had admited that Korea is not civilized,I should think that international law of view is not neutral.

about Takesima disput.Do you know "Japan-Korea Fishery Agreement"? Takesima disput was shelving on the agreement for the 30 years but The Takeshima dispute only came to light because of breached the agreement.

about "Takesima" naming.Do not enumerate it as an example of the name at that time on 100 previous states of year or more.Japanese not usually say "リャンコ岩"or"リアンクール岩".

Think in century of how many used about the name. Japanese gain nothing and Korean gain nothing.Are you dissatisfied with it?I think that it is neutral. --Forestfarmer 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to be short, I based on that Japan influenced the US in a not sincere way in deleting Dokdo from the SF treaty. Korea could not participate in drafting the treaty. More importantly, even without this serious flaw in the treaty, the treay can be interpreted more than one way according to international laws. So your claim is unilateral and cannot be accepted much outside of Japan.

By the way, I don't want to write any more on this issue because it seems that you don't understand fully what I have written. For example, I never mentionened that Korea is not civilized. What I meant was your babarian/civilized-mentioning is dangerous thinking and sounds ridiculous. If you meant it seriously, what's worse is you're admitting that Japan is still imperialistic as she was before WWII. Do you understand what I mean? It's like Nazi was civilized and Jews were babarian. So finally, all I can say to you is

フォレストファーマーさん, もういいです. やめてください. --ginnre 13:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

above Japanese translation "Dear Forestfarmer,I'm contented.Please stop it. "

write it ,what Do I stop ?--Forestfarmer 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop repeating the same thing over and over. --ginnre 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

you are lacked to writing and write it.I have no answer.Moreover, you write and are defeated. --Forestfarmer 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So,I think that your thinking is natural Korean thinking.I am deplorable but it is not Korean end and new korean opening.Japanese had been done an awful thing. because Japanese didn't know international law.and South Korea is disregarding International Law now.do you think that Korea become ? The result of the Takeshima dispute is understood.but whenever South Korea makes noise, foolish Japan makes it to putting off.because Japan profits by the bluster of South Korea.The reason is as shown in the above-mentioned.Korean international credibility is dropped whenever South Korea makes noise. but If South Korea was able to catch this fact, Japan will make South Korea important more.It might possibly be felt the threat.you are a civilization person because you anger as my writing "barb*rian".However, when the Japanese give over it here, the South Korean is not benefited.I don't know Japanese government think and Korean government think.

this is my thinking.

Korea government broke international law because Korea government want to Takeshima by all means.then Japanese knew the fear of beaking international law.but Japanse can not care less about Takesima in 1950.and The two countries made the fisheries agreement in 1960. Takesima disput was shelving on the agreement for the 30 years.then Japanese government think that Korean international credibility is dropped whenever time is time passes.but Korean government think that It is necessary to solve the problem ahead of time.but With the opinion of the two countries differs.

If this thing grows,Japan gain. The road only remains Koera to resign Takeshima.--Forestfarmer 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What you said is just only your(Korean) POV. What is "not sincere way"? Please, point it out concretely, and show us the reference. Korea required to write Dokdo in SF treaty at the stage of a preliminary draft. However, it was refused to the US. You know, it is Rusk documents. Gegesongs 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

foolish become silent.I can not understand your writing.--Forestfarmer 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gegesongs, this is what I wrote above ;

Japan's lobby through Sebold (to delete Dokdo from the treaty) was, as I mentioned earlier, deceitful in that Korea never intended to claim Dokdo to her territory and heavily influenced by Japan. Initially, the US didn't realize what the history of Dokdo has been like, so she just went ahead to put Dokdo to Japan influenced by the Japanese lobby, then with objection, stepped back to be neutral on that issue ever since. (ref 9 in the article )

Considering that Japan lobbied hard, in a deceitful way, to delete Dokdo from the treaty draft while Republic of Korea just formed, having not much power and order after that long exploitation of Japan, and was in a war, I don't know how valid Japanese claim is.---ginnre 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (9)

where is the evidence and the location on International Law? ginnre ,are you foolish man also ?--Forestfarmer 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-notice again!--Forestfarmer 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

changing point

• naming Liancourt Rocks
• POV on internatinal law --Forestfarmer 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.Read this discussion and discuss before revert
• not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

Liancourt Rocks are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is known as the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are written Dokdo(独島) in, and Japan,The islets are written Takesima(竹島) in.Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1]. Control of the islets by the South Korean government but a territory in Japan on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandoned a territory of Korea,was not included The islets,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

You're just make fun of yourself. I pointed out why your claim cannot be used to change the opening paragraph many times. But you just don't listen (or respond to those points) and repeat what you have been repeating. Who gave you the authority to notice like this? you really don't know how arrogant and childish you are? And you think you defeated me. For heaven's sake! I didn't fight against you. Don't repeat your notice. Otherwise I need to find a way to ban you from writing in this article. You're just vandalizing. Evidences are enough on this page. ---ginnre 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry,I wrote above changing point.and old ver also too but To tell the truth, the change point has already been mentioned more above.who is doing childlike act(^_^;) --Forestfarmer 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please think about this before you repeat your chidlish act.

The Cairo Conference of 1943 stipulated that "Japan will be expelled from all territories which she has taken by violence and greed [since the time of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95]." Considering Japan´s methods, there can be little doubt that Japan´s annexation of Dokdo in 1905 (along with all other Korean territories by 1910) falls within the definition of territories taken by greed, as defined by the Cairo Declaration. If Japan believes that its methods in acquiring Dokdo in 1905 were legitimate, then Japan must believe that it can still, by the same logic, claim sovereignty over the rest of the Korean Peninnsula...[10] ---ginnre 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but The Cairo Conference do not have the force of law on international law.it is only press release--Forestfarmer 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-notice again and again

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.Read this discussion and discuss before revert
• not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

changing point

• naming Liancourt Rocks
• POV on internatinal law

Liancourt Rocks are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is written the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are written Dokdo(独島) in, and Japan,The islets are written Takesima(竹島) in.Central News Agency of North Korea refers to The islets as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1]. Control of the islets by the South Korean government but a territory in Japan on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandoned a Korean territory ,was not included The islets,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

May I apply for the change in opning paragraph if there is no complaint any further?--Forestfarmer 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion has become too long because of lack of understandings from both sides. But the opening paragraph must be left because the information is true, and even if it is POV, the fact that Japan is merely claiming it is true as well. Good friend100 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

you think this is only Japanse POV but South Korea broked International Law in Takeshima disput. So as the result reluctant.This is international POV and neutral POV.--Forestfarmer 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yor're hopeless. You may use your opening paragraph somewhere in the Japanese goverment's official website, but not here. Don't repeat your childish act. Ginnre 15:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is my feeling? It is your inability to understand what I have written, not my feeling. Ginnre 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hi baby.when you insist,you bing evidence usually.write Japanese goverment's official website link.and for comparison, Korean goverment's official website link too.--Forestfarmer 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (10)

Write sentences after you thinks how Japanese Government takes care with the South Korea government.I write once more Korean international credibility is dropped whenever South Korea makes noise.I think that Japanese Government doesn't pursue and attack a retreating enemy.The time that it seriously conferred by the Agreement had been good.--Forestfarmer 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to myself I don't like arguments. We don't need to call others "baby" Forestfarmer. "Korean international credibility is dropped whenever South Korea makes noise" What does that mean? Please use correct English. Good friend100 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had writen above.but Express me because I repeat it.now Korea is breaking international law about Takesima disput.--Forestfarmer 07:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

South Korea is breaking international law? Which one? --Zonath 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had writen on above.but Express me because I repeat it.Tkakesima is a japanese territory.but korea is controlling illegally on international law.--Forestfarmer 08:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I see some stuff about the Rusk Documents and the Treaty of San Fransisco. However, neither document conclusively settles the question of whether or not Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory. Even if Japan was allowed to retain a claim over the islets by their omission from the Treaty of San Francisco, such claim would only be as valid as it was prior to the occupation of Korea. The United States could not unilaterally grant the territory to one side or another, as far as I know. If Japan truly had a valid claim prior to its occupation of Korea, then the islets would in fact belong to Japan, but that remains more or less an open question. Considering that there has been no ruling on the matter by any international legal body -- the ICJ, the UN, or otherwise -- and the fact that pretty much every country in the world treats the dispute as a matter to be settled between Japan and South Korea, it would be extremely inaccurate to state the assertion that South Korea occupies the islands in violation of international law as fact. Nor should we be placing such unproven legal assertions in the introduction of the article. To do so would be more or less equivalent to writing a Wikipedia article on Tom DeLay where the introduction stated that he was guilty. --Zonath 10:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write by itemizing it

You are misunderstanding it.Takesima is a japanese territory conclusively on international law.the ICJ, the UN, or otherwise start to think from it.--Forestfarmer 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's a false statement. As long as no authority on international law conclusively recognizes Japan's claim to the islets, it is a complete error to state as fact an assertion that the islets belong to Japan 'according to international law', as it is an error to assert that Korea's occupation of the islets is in violation of international law. In the absence of some sort of judgment on the matter, the assertion of illegality is simply not fact -- it's POV. Since you asked for an itemized list:

• No violation of international law on Korea's part has been brought before any international body, much less proven.
• In the absence of such judgment, we should treat any allegation of illegality as a POV assertion rather than as a fact, and any mention of it should be stated as such.
• As the opening paragraph is meant to be a summary of the article, such a POV argument should not be included in it. Rather, arguments for (or against) Japan should be included within the body of the article, not the introduction.
• Please note that I am not arguing the underlying validity of Japan's claims here, nor is this really the place to do so. I am merely suggesting that to include a very specific allegation in the introduction, the party wishing to include that allegation should bear the burden of proving it. In the absence of some sort of actual judgment by the ICJ, the UN, or other international body that would have jurisdiction, I simply do not see how such an allegation can be proven, especially if we are to abide by the policy of WP:NOR.
• Perhaps more to the point, in order to get this page unprotected and modify the first paragraph, there must be some sort of consensus on what that paragraph should look like. As written, your paragraph will never achieve that consensus, for reasons listed above as well as elsewhere on this talk page and its archives. --Zonath 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

please write more readable English.your English is too dirty to read for ususl plople.but express me because I reply you.1st,Takesima is a Japanese territory by SF treaty.but What is the authority that Takeshima makes a South Korea territory now? SF treaty is international law.but South Korean President's declaration doesn't have the meaning on International Law. 2nd it is good to you itemizing it.but meaning is not itemized.you should put one meaning in each item.and you should put short title in each item like "about Takesima naming".Are you a school child ? but school child would write more readable sentence.

• "No violation~" Takesima is a Japanese territory.but Korea is controlling it now.it is a violation of international.
• "In the absence~"illegal controlling is a breach of international law.and Do you think international law is not NPOV ? if so,Korean became a barbarian.
• "As the opening paragraph~" Do you want not to write contralling of Takesima on opening paragraph? If you think so,I may agree it.
• "Please note~"same as above.
• "Perhaps more to the point~" you think that I am neutral for a long time if you read all this section.--Forestfarmer 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks and childish name-calling if you wish to be taken seriously in this discussion. And rather than attacking the struture of my arguments, please do take the time to read and understand them. Your purely emotional and reactionary stance on these arguments does nothing to refute them, but rather simply serves to clutter this talk page with meaningless and pointless debate.

• First of all, please read and understand WP:NOR. The fact that you use the San Francisco treaty as 'proof' of Japan's title to the islets smacks of original research, since it takes a non-obvious inference in order to draw that conclusion (indeed, Dokdo is not even mentioned by the treaty). Allow me to illustrate the difference between an obvious inference and a non-obvious one:

• UN resolution 1029 specifies that Korea's occupation of Dokdo is illegal. --> Korea's occupation of Dokdo violates international law. (Obvious and direct inference.)
• The treaty of San Fransico settled the issue because it makes no reference to Dokdo. Since Japan never formally relinquished its claim to the islets, (and the Rusk documents show that the US believed that Korea never claimed the islets), Japan is the rightful owner of Takeshima. (Non-obvious inference.)

The difference between these two assertions is that the first would be easily verifiable (if true), while the second cannot be verified, and is in fact debated between more capable legal scholars than us. The first would be acceptible as a statement of fact, while the second would not be. In the first, we can easily go from A to B in a single step, while in the second example, getting from A to B requires us to go through C (the Rusk documents) as well as accept assumption D (that Japan had a legitimate claim on the islets prior to WWII) as true.

• In addition, all of this must be secondary to the fact that virtually nobody on this talk page seems to agree with your assertions, nor do they appear to approve of your proposal for an opening paragraph. We should be attempting to achieve a consensus on this page, rather than engaging in ultimately pointless debates over the ownership of these particular islets. As long as you continue to put forth a suggestion that appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia policies (on a number of fronts), any consensus we reach will most likely not include your proposal in any form. --Zonath 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion was firmly caught.but Do you want to be disregarded? you have no question.--Forestfarmer 01:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (11)

I don't understand your claims of "Korea broke international law". What international law?

I just copied the below statement. Because its written in a place hard to find.

If the international decisionmaking sides with the Japanese, then how come the territory hasn't been turned over to the Japanese side. They had 50 years to do it. The reason why it is hard for Japan to control and own Dokdo is because Japan's historical claim is weaker than Korea's. Everything doesn't revolve around the "modern times", as everyone is using Japan's world influence to their advantage. Also, the Takeshima side refers to only the international court of justice since they are more supportive of Japan. World history never began in 1910. And the usage of only the modern times shows a ton of Japan supporting facts.

Just because history is history, that doesn't mean the facts are history. Facts from history are true and avoiding Dokdo's history around Korea and Japan does not mean the events during the modern times will help Japan's claim on Dokdo.

Also, just because the San Francisco Treaty doesn't mention Dokdo that doesn't mean Japan is the rightful holder. I suppose then, every single island in Korea must still be Japanese territory, since they were not mentioned. There are thousands of islands. Does this make those islands Japanese territory? The San Francisco Treaty stated that Japan must return all of their territories they invaded and conquered. This means that every part of Korea must be returned to Korea. Good friend100 02:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

read this section at all.you find it in above.--Forestfarmer 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

but I would answer because you are writing seriously.Takesima is a Japanese territory but Korea is controlling now it.it is a violation of international.

Takesima is not ceted in the SF treaty.it is the reason that Takesima is a Japanese territory.Takesima is controled of force for ten years.The Takeshima problem is shelved for thirty year and the dispute came also to light reacent ten years.Read this section at all if you want to know details. history is too long to write opening paragraph.--Forestfarmer 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You must stop this political discussion. "The only road that remains for Korea is to resign Takeshima". Who says? Japan? This is irrevelant to this article and your discussions are not helping anybody. All I see is a bunch of Japan POV statements that are written by you. >Forestfarmer Good friend100 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought so.and I had written "I think" in there.--Forestfarmer 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-notice again and again

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it and write example.
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.Read this discussion and discuss before revert
• not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

changing point

• naming Liancourt Rocks
• POV on internatinal law
• The description related to North Korea is deleted.
• "Written" is rewritten in "Known".

Liancourt Rocks are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is written the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are known as Dokdo(独島) in, and Japan,The islets are known as Takesima(竹島) in.the South Korean government is controlling the islets but the islets is a Japanese territory on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandoned a Korean territory ,was not included The islets,by treaty of Peace With japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

May I apply for the change in opning paragraph if there is no complaint any further--Forestfarmer 11:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose any further attempts by Forestfarmer to change the opening paragraph of this article. Not only has he shown that he has no basic command of the English language, but he has also shown that he has no willingness or ability to compromise or to act reasonably in order to achieve a consensus on this issue. --Zonath 11:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks.

• anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it--Forestfarmer 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Your paragraph is biased. For reasons stated on this page, as well as the talk archives, your paragraph goes against any sort of consensus that has been reached thus far. Until you modify your paragraph along the lines discussed above, it will never reach the consensus necessary to be included in this article.
• You have shown a basic inability to compromise. Your only purpose here appears to be to push your agenda. The above paragraph appears to have undergone no signifigant changes, despite vigorous opposition and countless suggestions for improvement.
• Your paragraph contains unproven assertions that violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, amongst other Wikipedia policies. For reasons outlined above by myself and other commentators, the supposed 'facts' contained in your paragraph violate Wikipedia policies. Please read and understand those policies to understand why your paragraph is unacceptible.
• Your paragraph will never achieve consensus without modification. For the above reasons, you must modify your paragraph, removing the assertions that so many on this page find unacceptible in order to achieve the necessary consensus. Please take the time to re-read the suggestions contained in the arguments above and be realistic in your expectations of what you might be allowed to include in your paragraph. --Zonath 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

please write each example.because I don't understand where this "opening paragraph" is wrong.--Forestfarmer 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• "is written the East Sea only in The South Korea" - Blatantly false, violating WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as beside the point. 'East Sea' is also used in several maps and publications used outside Korea.
• "the islets is a Japanese territory on international law" - Please read the above discussion. I have outlined several times why this violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If you can point to an international agreement or to a decision by a court of international jurisdiction that unequivocally states (in more or less these words), "The Liancourt Rocks are Japanese territory", then I will retract my objection to this.
• "The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandoned a Korean territory ... Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration." - There is abundant evidence that Korea has considered Dokdo to be part of its territory since at least 500 years ago. One could just as easily say that this dispute did not somehow begin with the 'one-sided' South Korean declaration, but with Japan's one-sided annexation of the islets in 1905. Again, these statements also violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR

I'm sure there's more that's wrong with your paragraph, but I simply no longer have the inclination to continue arguing with someone who refuses to compromise and who willfully disregards any opinion in order to push his own POV. By all means, if you believe your paragraph to be up to the standards of Wikipedia, submit it to a consensus poll and let us all have a vote on it. --Zonath 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

about East sea,I will rewrite "is known as the East Sea only in The South Korea"

about POV on international law,You are misunderstanding it.You think that you may observe it only in front of court but a usual country has to observe international law.

about lree line,The declaration is one-sided because it is not accepted by what kind of country.and when mid of WWII,Takesima is a Japanese territory.

"I'm sure~" I saw that you want to vote this "Opening Paragraph".--Forestfarmer 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph (12)

"The islet's title is declared by Korea before Japan abandonment territory of Korea,is not included Dokto,by Treaty of Peace With Japan. Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration."

This is POV. Not only are there grammatical errors, Korea didn't start the dispute. It was rightfully given to Korea with the conclusion of the San Francisco Treaty. Although the treat never mentioned Dokdo it forced Japan to relinquish all its territories, which included Dokdo as well.

I suggest keeping the current paragraph right now. Good friend100 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I might misunderstand your sentence.but I reply it.I think that you might want to write "korea declared all right about Dokdo before Japan concludes SF treaty.therefore Dokdo is a Korean territory" but the declaration is not accepted by what any other countries.therefore the declaration have no meaning on international law.--Forestfarmer 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I never insisted changing the paragraph. I suggested to keep the current paragraph. Good friend100 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrite problems of current ver.
Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima).The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles, and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".[1]

• "Dokdo are islets"(Liancourt Rocks known in English )not NPOV
  
• "Sea of Japan (East Sea)"(The East Sea known only in Korea)not NPOV
  
• currently controlled and administered by South Korea(Liancourt Rocks is a territory in Japan on international law and the area is disputed on international law when the Syngman Rhee line was declared)not NPOV
• supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation"(Please do not write happily Rogue state's supports.South Korea seems this kind.and they wrotet "supports control" without writing, "supports administered".Do you think this meaning?I cautioned,and I would like to delete.If you want to leave it,I don't edit.I think that South Korea becomes the puppet of North Korea.)my caution

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

• It is historically opposite.I have not edited it yet.not NPOV--Forestfarmer 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-notice again and again

• If anyone want to argue this opning paragraph,write CONCRETELY by itemizing it and write example.
• I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.
• It is vandalism to revert this opening paragraph after to rewrite this opening paragraph.Read this discussion and discuss before revert
• not edit the sentence discussed with this discussion.

changing point

• naming Liancourt Rocks
• POV on internatinal law
• The description related to North Korea is deleted.
• "Written" is rewritten in "Known".
• East sea is known only in The South Korea.

Liancourt Rocks are islets.The islets are in the Sea of Japan,is known as the East Sea only in The South Korea.The islets are a disputed area between The South Korea,The islets are known as Dokdo(独島) in, and Japan,The islets are known as Takesima(竹島) in.the South Korean government is controlling the islets but the islets is a Japanese territory on international law. The islets are declared one-sidedly by a Suth Korean president as a territory before Japan abandoned a Korean territory ,was not included The islets,by treaty of Peace With japan.Thus This dispute began since The South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

May I apply for the change in opning paragraph if there is no complaint any further--Forestfarmer 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sigh.. If we're going to actually debate this, let's at least clear up the grammar a bit...

Liancourt rocks are islets in the Sea of Japan, which is known as the East Sea only in South Korea. The islets are a disputed area between South Korea, where the islets are known as Dokdo, and Japan, where the islets are known as Takeshima. The South Korean government controls the islets, but the islets are Japanese territory according to international law. The islets were unilaterally declared South Korean territory by a South Korean president before Japan abandoned Korean territory. The islets were not included in the peace treaty between Japan and Korea. Thus, this dispute began with the South Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as part of Ulleung County, Noth Gyeonsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

Okay... Here's a basic run-down of what needs improvement:

• Sea of Japan, which is known as the East Sea only in South Korea - Please see: WP:Naming conventions (Korean). If you want to change the convention away from Sea of Japan (East Sea), then please start there, not here.
• disputed area - There are many people who have claimed that this violates NPOV policy, and it might be difficult gaining any consensus because of that. I'm not saying not to use it, but considering the sentiment here, you might take into consideration some of those opinions if you want people to support your paragraph.
• islets are Japanese territory according to international law - This violates WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. See the above discussion for why.
• unilaterally declared - Simply not going to get into the article as written. South Korean POV is that the islets were not 'unilaterally declared' as South Korean territory by Pres. Rhee because the islets already were Korean territory.
• This dispute began... - Probably violates WP:NPOV, seeing as how it's blatant finger-pointing.

If you want to apply for the change, go ahead, but seeing as how most of us have to approve the change before it goes into the article, you might consider listening to a few of the arguments in this (rather too long) section, and change your proposed paragraph accordingly. --Zonath 08:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK,I would discuss with you.

• about Sea of Japan,I would rewrite "sea of Japan(east sea)" but after all of this opening paragraph,I would discuss about it.
• about "disput","japanese teritory on international","unilaterally declared" and"This dispute began" I would propose either things cut down.

when The following thing is not accepted by you,I don't know after it.

this is new ver.--Forestfarmer 10:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt rocks are islets in the Sea of Japan(East Sea). The islets are a claimed area by South Korea, where the islets are known as Dokdo, and Japan,where the islets are known as Takeshima.South Korea classifies the islets as part of Ulleung County, Noth Gyeonsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

May I apply for the change in opning paragraph if there is no complaint any further--Forestfarmer 10:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be able to take mutual agreement.I apply.--Forestfarmer 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, where's the mutual agreement? --Reuben 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

you are welcome,I think you are first visit in this seciton.an't you? this is 13th opening paragraph which is discussed by both side.Do you arue this opening oaragraph ? I would hear your insistence.It has a discussion of this sort here and there.This is the oldest in remaining.I think It take mutual agreement.--Forestfarmer 09:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still believe "administered" is too strong. Japan administers the islands as much as Korea does (administration refers, genereally, to the government bookkeeping, etc., which Japan does as well). Simply saying "constrols" is more correct--although some might argue against it. Personally I feel the best way to say this is simply say that Korea has a physical presence on the island. That's the only "undisputed" fact. LactoseTI 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the CIA fact book map of Japan , the disputed Kuriles say "administered" by Russia and "claimed" by Japan. Tortfeasor 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Forestfarmer, basically all the discussions in this long opening paragraph section were between you, good friend, and me. What consensus did you reach? I said I disagree with your last suggestion, but it looks like deleted, I don't know who did. Please stop your suggestions and come down. Below there are more meaningful discussions. 158.130.44.189 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I didn't sign in. It was me Ginnre 20:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo vs. Liancourt Rocks

The names of places, like words in a language, changes through time by the people who use them. If anyone thinks old British naval charts should be the standard of "naming" in English wiki, I'd point to Formosa as an example. The ROC government changed it to Taiwan, so today it's shown as Taiwan on all maps. Dokdo is obviously under Korean control (or occupation) today and the people living there don't call it Lioncourt rocks. In time their claim will be solidfield (so long as they can keep the Japanese at bay by force or diplomacy) and the island will become Dokdo on our maps. -- Adeptitus 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Vienna is not on any Austrian map. As there are rival names for the islets the one which best complies with the WP:NPOV policy is "Liancourt Rocks" as by using it Wikipedia was not presenting either a Korean or Japanese point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

you might want to take it up at Talk:Senkaku Islands; it is the disparity that sparked the move discussion. btw, you're right, i defer to the bbc; although it's obvious from english google searches and even bbc's own internal searches, i can't find a quote "sometimes called" to cite, so your wording stays. Appleby 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Liancourt Rocks" is now under dispute with two countrys. By armed invasions of Korea (or other countrys) the sovereignty issue can't be changed under international law now. Senkaku Island has been under Japanse control for over 100years without invasions, but the "Liancourt Rocks" were invaded about 50 years ago. There is clear difference between two facts.Mythologia 12:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to argue the merits of Japan's claims. That's not what's needed for writing an encyclopedia article. We don't have to decide who's right, just describe the dispute. --Reuben 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The purpose of the wiki article should be to present the dispute. However I'd go as far as saying that whoever is currently in control of the territory, by force or other means, gets to name it, and that name should be the primary name used, with disputed names listed afterwards.

Like: Senkaku (Diaoyutai), Falklands (Malvinas), Kuril Islands (Chishima/Kuriru islands), Xizang (Tibet), Navassa (Lanavaz), etc.

The reality is that whoever is in de facto control of the territory, gets to do whatever the heck they want with it so long as they can maintain their control, and anyone else who makes a claim is just a pretender. Look at the Falklands as an example. The Argentines have been claiming it for over 200 years, and had their navy been strong enough to whack the British in 1982, the island would be named Las Malvinas today, and all Britons would've been expelled and shipped back to the UK.

Might doesn't always make right, but it does make ownership -- keep it if you can. -- Adeptitus 10:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spain is Spain in English, France is France in English, and Germany is Germany in English. Not one of those counries use those words to describe themselves. They can all do "whatever the heck they want with" withing their territory, but they can not force the name of their country in to the English Language. WP:NC common usage does not trump WP:NPOV --Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the article's name back to Liancourt Rocks. We had a poll to change it to Dokdo and thats what happened. Good friend100 12:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed with reading these childish discussion. Why those supposed Koreans demand "Dokdo" for the title so strongly that it breaks the neutral of wikipedia? Because, Korea is right and Japan is wrong? Nonsense. From Japan, Korea is wrong and Japan is right. Unfortunately, many other users do not have enough information more than wiki has. Changing the title so often just confuse the users. I think what Wikipedians have to do is to write scientific truth and not confusing users. We should change the name to "Lioncourt Rocks" so that no aggressive Korean and Japanese may change the title for their each opinion. Ladycasanova 14:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

since the name here was changed to be consistent with other articles, it would be more productive to continue the discussion of the reasoning at, for example, Talk:Senkaku Islands. Appleby 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ladycasanova: Try reading the past archives first. We had a poll. Good friend100 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

all new comers, read my writing in 'opening parapraph' section. Liancourt Rocks is NOT neutral and it cannot be the English name for the island, either. There was a long and well discussed history about the name. ginnre 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would advise you.more read 'opning paragraph'.and feel meaning of my sentence.I only write it to fool.--Forestfarmer 07:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You might as well explain what you wrote to all the Takeshima side since they are lobbying for at least Liancourt Rocks to gain a foothold on Dokdo. >ginnre Good friend100 01:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation from my discussion with ginnre in "opening paragraph"

"about "Takesima" naming.Do not enumerate it as an example of the name at that time on 100 previous states of year or more.Japanese not usually say "リャンコ岩"or"リアンクール岩". Think in century of how many used about the name. Japanese gain nothing and Korean gain nothing.Are you dissatisfied with it?I think that it is neutral. --Forestfarmer 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC) "--Forestfarmer 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Liancourt Rocks" is POV because even though it is a neutral name for some neutral observers or foreigners, it doesn't fully represent Korea's control over the island currently. Also, "Dokdo" has been in use for a far longer time than "Liancourt Rocks". The Wikipedia policy states that the most common name should be used (although this is not always true in other articles) Good friend100 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Takesima is a disputed area.Third party should use third name when it is exist.and usual English speaker cannot recognize Dokto sa ilands.do you think about it?--Forestfarmer 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could always use Hornet Rocks, which, for all its other faults, is at least a neutral name inasmuch as none of the powers that have actually attempted to control Dokdo have attempted to use it. But that would be fairly silly. And as for usual English speakers not being able to recognize 'dokdo' as a name belonging to islets, 'Liancourt Rocks' isn't a whole lot more descriptive. At any rate, the issue is moot, being that there's already been a recent consensus poll on this very issue, the result of which was to move the article here. I suppose another poll could be held eventually, but I don't think you're going to get a whole lot of support from most of the people who take the time to actually comment here, seeing as one has been held (with pretty poor behavior on the part of certain parties) very recntly. --Zonath 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Hornet Rocks.please account for it in deteil.and usual english speaker understands that 'Liancourt' Rocks is an island than the 'Dokdo'. --Forestfarmer 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

>>Forestfarmer - Hornet Rocks: (Quoting from the article) "In 1849, a French whaler from Le Havre by the name of Le Liancourt, named the islets "Rochers de Liancourt" in 1849.[2] In 1854, the Russians called them the "Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks" upon their first sighting and, in 1855, the English started calling them the "Hornet Rocks"." Hornet Rocks was just another obscure name used for the islets -- the 'proper English name', I suppose. I believe someone might have broached using it for the title of the article in the past, but it was deemed much too obscure a name to actually use. --Zonath 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S.government used Liancourt Rocks in the Rusk documents but why Do you put "Hornet Rocks" in this section?--Forestfarmer 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hornet Rocks" would be an even more neutral name than Liancourt Rocks, as well as have the benefit of being an English name rather than a French one. However, I was using it to illustrate that the most neutral name is not always the best one. --Zonath 09:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Search only for pages written in English:"Hornet Rocks"72

if it is usual in English.I would find more homepage in google.--Forestfarmer 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Typing in "Dokdo" on Google gives you 638,000 results while typing in "Liancourt Rocks" gives you 81,500. Google is not always accurate, but you can still see how Dokdo is used more than "Liancourt Rocks". "Takeshima" results are 593,000. Good friend100 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Search only for pages written in English:"Takeshima" 347,000

Search only for pages written in English:"Dokdo" 148,000

Search only for pages written in English:"Liancourt Rocks" 17,700

from your theory,the ilands name in English is "Takeshima".--Forestfarmer 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that a large number of the "Takeshima" hits are as a family name, a restaurant, and an unrelated island somewhere else in Japan. (I think the kanji are different, but the pronunciation and Romanization are identical). Also, please don't forget the variable Romanization of Korean words: "Dokdo" is only one possible spelling. Tokto and Tokdo must also be considered. You can find the results of a more careful Google test in the archive. --Reuben 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Search only for pages written in English:"Tokto" -"Dokdo" -"Tokdo"15,800

Search only for pages written in English:"Tokdo" -"Dokdo" -"Tokto" 27,600

Search only for pages written in English:"Takeshima" -"restaurant"332,000

if it is added,the ilands' name is "Takeshima".and Do you recognize "Dokdo" is not only writed in English ?--Forestfarmer 07:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

a population of japanese "竹島" family is 16,600(1103th) [11].if The person of all "竹島" families in Japan　have own homepage in English,"Takesima" is more popular than "Dokdo" in English.--Forestfarmer 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that both sides' opinions were exhausted.and I insist to move this article title "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks" because "Dokdo" is not easily understood as ilands by usual English user.adding, "Dokdo" is not popular than "Takesima" in English google.I want to move it to "Takesima" but third party should use third name if it exist. "Liancourt Rocksis" is third name enough. It is NPOV. I have more things that I want to write. but I don't write any more because I think it may be my POV.I would request this move.Don't anyone argue this request ?--Forestfarmer 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a new move. It'll just enflame the debate more and it will be an endless coming and going. Ginnre 18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. "Dokdo" is a lot more common name then "Liancourt Rocks" because "Liancourt Rocks" are only used by some neutral observers and most people include "Liancourt Rocks" because it is another name.

Using "Liancourt Rocks" makes it seem as if Korea or Japan claims Dokdo at an equal position, which is not. And remember Google is just a crude search engine. Good friend100 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be hot.read WP:NPOV. yours insistence don't follow fundamental wikipedia principle.especally about "~by some neutral observers". The islands are disput area.It have right that neutral observer use "Liancourt Rock" and Wikipedia should be followed NPOV too.additionally,It is fact that crude search engine,you insisted, answer it.but your insistence ""Dokdo" is a lot more common name then "Liancourt Rocks"" is not fact. because It is only your POV. please write more creative insistence.It might seem vandalism.--Forestfarmer 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Forestfarmer.

"Takeshima" is a Japanese name. So, it is Japan POV.

"Dokdo" is a Korean name. So, it is Korea POV.

"Liancourt Rocks" is the other country called. it is NPOV.

It's very simple which name wikipedea should be use.--Junmai 11:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If Liancourt Rocks is a really neutral name, you may be right. However, it's not that simple because 'Liancourt Rocks' has much more stronger tie to Japan. They once officially named the islands as "リャンコ岩"or"リアンクール岩" before they named it as 'Takeshima'. Original english name was 'Hornet island'. Soon after Japan named the islands as 'Takeshima' Korea went down to Japanese occupation, and to the world, the islands were known as 'Liancourt Rocks' exclusively from Japanese source. For Japanese, Liancourt Rocks is a familiar name for more than 100 years long with Takeshima. You can see it easily because it is Japan to promote this name these days, too, claiming it is neutral and they criticize Korean asserting using Dokdo as nationalistic. The reality is like this;

Japan knows that Dokdo is pratically controlled by Korea and it is impossible for them to get it now just by claiming this or that. And they also know that history before the 20th century and all those documents around the end of WWII is not strong enough for them to claim Dokdo. Both Korean and Japan have this or that about the island, with a little bit more convincing historical evidences favorable for Korea and almost 50:50 evidences among all those documents around the end of WWII. (By the way, it is natural that the evidences from those documents around the end of WWII is more improved for Japan than those before the 20th century because Japan occupied Korea more than 30 years until the end of WWII and the entire Korea was Japanese territory until then. How could the rest world know whatsoever was Korean opinion on the islands?) Hence, the only way for Japan to get Dokdo is, first to change the status quo on the islands. For that purpose, it is this seemingly harmless 'Liancourt Rocks' to begin with. To reduce the presence of the name 'Dokdo' in any publication in the world is the first step. Once it is widely known as Liancourt Rocks than Dokdo, maybe in 10 to 20 years, it looks more neutral and Korean tie to Dokdo is more weakened by then. Then it is easier for Japan to claim Dokdo at that time or make the atmosphere favorable to them. So, for now, they promote this name as their first strategy to get it (back, as they say). That's one of the reasons why so many Koreans are against to and so many Japanese are for this name. To change the name from Dokdo to Liancourt Rock does not reflect the current situation, but it SETS the current situation in favor of Japan, because it is what Japan is up to at present and they do this all over the world. As they put more effort, more and more publication will cease to use Dokdo and start to use Liancourt Rocks. As you can see it is happening these days. 10 years or 5 years ago, Liancourt Rocks were barely known name for this island.

So, is it still a neutral name? It is NOT and it also shows that Japanese don't think much about their imperialistic expansion period before WWII. This wide spreading of Liancourt Rocks began in Japanese occupation of Korea and their main arguments largely stem from those documents around the end of WWII. And those documents were possible at all because they occupied Korea so a long time just before. If they are truely sorry about the period at all, they can't claim the islands so strongly and systematically based on those evidences mainly coming from that period. Their argument may be nice and strong, but they don't think about under what circumstances those documents were produced, dating back to this Shimane prefecture's proclaim of Dokdo as terra nullius in 1905, when Japanese expasion just began.

I found that Japanese are in general so ignorant of this historical background and just talking about international laws and evidences from that period. The fact is, those evidences were in general heavily influenced by Japanese opinion after Japan's long occupation of Korea. It shows that Japanese government has little interest to educate Japanese about this dark history or they don't regard that period as that dark.

So for Koreans, Japanese are very arrogant in this regard because Japanese endlessly refer to those evidences without any regret about that dark period, thinking those documents are evidence for their right for Dokdo. In principle, in the 20th centruty, it was so before WWII, but it is not any more after WWII. To compare, have Germany ever tried to claim back their former territory, Pommern ? Ginnre 15:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your paper is both good and original.but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.C^-

It's joke.Don't make your humor bad.I would want to write it once.but I would write seriously here.

I don't dicuss with "Takesima" belonging in this section."Takesima" is disput area between Japan and Korea. It is end and over.more over about it do not fit this section.

U.S.government used Liancourt Rocks in the Rusk documents in 1951,.It have evidence that neutral observer use "Liancourt Rock".

bring evidence "リャンコ岩"or"リアンクール岩" is officially used in japan 100 years ago or more.

Don't forget ""Takeshima" is a Japanese territory on international law." is fact. and your paper is at all YOUR POV.--Forestfarmer 17:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about your comment, because I answered more than enough previously. Regarding リャンコ岩, read Q45 - Q46 in the link[12]. Ginnre 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching his page for a long time and I didn't want to get involved with the debate here, but I felt that I needed to say something...Forestfarmer, I think you're missing Ginnre's point. I think her point was that the name Liancourt Rocks was derived from a Japanese source; therefore, she feels that it isn't a neutral name. Whether this is true, I'm not sure, so I'll have to investigate later. But if indeed what Ginnre says is true, then it's quite similiar to how the Sea of Japan was an English/officially-maintained-as-neutral name created from Japanese sources, hence the Sea of Japan. However, this isn't about the Sea of Japan naming dispute, so I am hoping all of us will avoid that little vicious debate. Hope that clears things up.

Anyway, instead of this issue worsening into a nasty, trolling war (again), how about taking a poll (again) with preferably little comments as necessary? (But seriously, isn't anybody out here sick of all this fighting and debating about the name of this article and whose claims are more valid? The verbal war between the Korean nationalists and Japanese nationalists is bad enough in the real world...) —Mirlen 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,I had be hot.I try to be cool. the discussion about it seem to get inflame. I choose taking a poll.--Forestfarmer 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

see this webpage.[13].

excerpt:

Then in 1849, another French warship Liancourt survey Tokdo and christened it "Liancourt Rocks." After that "Dagelet Island" and "Liancourt Rocks" were used in the European maps and gazettes.

The Russians followed suit.In 1854, the Russian warship Palada under the command of a Putiatin made a survey of Tokdo and gave it the name of "Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks." but Tokdo was popularly known as "Liancourt Rocks" in Europe.

"Liancourt Rocks" is found by French warship.and It is used in European maps and gazettes. and It has spread to Europe.in 1854. "Liancourt" popularly known in not only Europe but also Russia.

There is no Japan or no Japnese.and I think the reason that old japanese used "リャンコ岩" or "リアンクール岩" is "Liancourt Rocks" being used in Europe then.--Forestfarmer 10:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

May I apply for the move if there is no complaint any further--Forestfarmer 09:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Would you stop repeating this over and over? Ginnre 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Forestfarmer is repeating this because no one is responding. Perhaps we should move down below, as there are many inactive discussions between here and the bottom (where everyone looks). It might prompt some more discussion, as this issue is clearly not "settled." LactoseTI 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeating Things

This discussion, to me, is turning out way too repetitive. We've been discussing these things over and over and over again. For example, how long have we been arguing over names Dokdo-Liancourt-Takeshima? If we're to make this discussion more meaningful, I suggest we start arguing ove evidence that I have not heard at least twice, or end this war entirely. Oyo321 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

i donno about dokdo vs whatever, but seems to me that the koreans are right to rename sea of japan to east sea. though it's still from korean perspective (ocean east of korea), at least it's more neutral than "sea of japan". 71.104.33.232 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit silly considering that Japan's East Sea region lies on the other side of Japan, though. It would be so much better if they could come up with a common name. Just saying. Rōnin 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well..."East Sea" would not be really neutral, but China supports the fact that it should be the East Sea since it is east to them as well. I agree a common name would compromise it but that is highly unlikely. Good friend100 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

East Sea would be appropriate and a neutral name for the sea. Like I mentioned before, the Sea of Japan is named only because Japan wanted it to, and Japan is well known in the world, so nobody would compete with Japan for their naming of a natural body of water. Oyo321 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I was just thinking of the Tokai region, which is apparently nearby the Pacific ocean, and not by the East Sea. Imagine having a sea called the East Sea to the West and a piece of land called the East Sea to the East. Enough to make one dizzy. ☺ Rōnin 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems there's a Japanese region called "中国" ("middle country", but also "China"). Poor folks! Rōnin 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should make up a compromise name, seriously. Good friend100 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you start a poll 69.222.52.114 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think... Oh, wait, is that irony or not? Rōnin 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Oyo321 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a compromise name: it's called the 청해 (靑海 or Blue Sea), which is another historical name for it. This article recommends the name for international use while letting the two countries continue to use their own names for the sea. Mithridates 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. To live is to learn! Who knows, maybe in 100 years... Rōnin 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I have never heard of the Blue Sea, and I suppose not a lot of people in both Korea or Japan know of it...Good friend100 17:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorsing the Korean POV is POV. Endorsing the Nihon POV is POV. Calling the islets Liancourt Rocks, a neutral term, and mentioning both POV names, is not POV. I am new to this article so I was not involved in previous debates or polls but I fail to see how we came to such a conclusion. —Aiden 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note the following line in the Protected notice on the main page: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden: Enforcing NPOV is fine. But I feel as though you are specifically singling out this one article for your version of NPOV and that to me doesn't seem neutral. There is a whole category of disputed territories that would also benefit from your NPOV standard, like Sea of Japan and Tsushima Basin.

My point is that this article was moved to this name with a consensus of the votes and we should respect that. If we don't, then any editor could just start ignoring consensus and change the names on any article that they want, like you have done. I don't think that is how Wikipedia should work because it would get a little chaotic. Tortfeasor 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, Liancourt Rocks is not neutral. It is in favor of Japan. Please read the archives for the discussion and my writing in 'opening paragraph' section.--ginnre 15:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, I request a revert to the previous version before Forestfarmer did as I asked in the 'opening paragraph' section. Please read it. And why did you set protection with this version? The previous one has been out there for a relative long time and the current version is just new and controversial. ginnre 17:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note the following line in the Protected notice on the main page: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." There will be no changes until you all can work out some sort of compromise. This revert war is ridiculous. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having the name "Dokdo" replaced with "the area" and "the islets" in the article, but I think we should at least make sure the opening paragraph and the page title agree on what the islets are called. Currently the page title says "Dokdo" (as was agreed upon in the most recent poll), whereas the opening paragraph says "Liancourt Rocks". We should either decide to move the article back to "Liancourt Rocks" (and even then we should consider keeping the protection!) or continue to use Dokdo as the preferred name, as we've been doing now for a short while. I'm beginning to lean towards the first option after seeing the shitstorm that's taken place here. Is anyone else wondering if we should consider moving the article back? Rōnin 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a shi#tstorm as much as a few users who have been violating Wikipedia policies by using sockpuppets. If the only criteria for moving a page back is the amount of complaining and abusing the system that a few users have caused, that sets up a very poor precedent for everyone else who abides by the rules instead pitching a hissy fit every time consensus doesn't go there way. Tortfeasor 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction does not match the title of the page. Please fix it. See Senkaku Islands for an example. Those islands are also in dispute, but as they are administered by Japan the article has a Japanese bent. Dokdo is controlled by South Korea. It should be written accordingly, reflecting the reality and not opinions.--Sir Edgar 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make a list of items that should be changed, and then we can see if everyone agrees on them. Until a consensus is reached, this page will not be unprotected. Sorry, but the edit warring is really pathetic (not pointing fingers at any specific person here as there were many, many participants). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• The name used in the first paragraph and the article title should match Rōnin 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm also asking that we return to the post-poll, pre-vandalism version that had been settling down until a few days ago. this & other recently protected pages will need an admin (& i guess nihonjoe has been self-nominated), to actually look at the contested versions and apply wikipedia policy.

the last thing we need is another numerical counting of prejudices, as long as there are pretty obvious sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and zealous newcomers who cannot reasonably discuss in english relevant wikipedia policies and references. there have been some heroic attempts to assume good faith & stabs at dialogue or just exhausted compromise, but it's been an utter waste of goodwill.

since you've set the protection & have presumptive authority to modify or unprotect, nihonjoe, please bring back some sanity here. i trust nihonjoe's ability to be fair & apply his wikipedia experience & knowledge of policies. there's already been plenty of discussion in talk, archives, & edit summaries. now, we need less repetition of opinions & more adherence to policy. or we'll have to wait til hell freezes over for the mob rule to exhaust itself while the vandalized versions stay protected. thanks for your efforts to help, & hope you can finish what you started. Appleby 00:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the article consistent with the title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Rōnin 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it undermine the entire purpose of a page protection if a user is allowed to edit the page to his liking, especially when that version is contested as POV? That amounts to an endorsement. —Aiden 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an endorsement of Wikipedia policy. The article title should be the same as the name in the first paragraph as it is in all other articles. Tortfeasor 06:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the people involved in this article reach consensus so that the protection will be gone? It doesn't look like so.ginnre 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I brought up moving the page back. I actually agree with you, it's all fine and dandy to dispute Korea's claim to the islands, but they control it now, much as the ROC controls Taiwan and Israel controls... Well, Israel. As far as I can see, no article can actually have a neutral point of view, because there's no such thing as a neutral observer. But for pragmatic reasons, I thought we could still consider moving the article back at some point in the future. Nevertheless, it's not something I intend to actively advocate. Rōnin 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

An unreasonable thing is done.--Forestfarmer 10:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronin, the NPOV rule is too stiff. There are never neutral observers. The Wikipedia NPOV policy weakens the Korean side because the Japan side keeps using the NPOV rule to say "Dokdo is POV, should be Liancourt Rocks" or "the opening paragraph is Korean POV".

I suggest the page be protected until our discussions become a little more stable. I don't want to see vandalism happen again like a couple months ago. Good friend100 16:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

first of all, please put

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. }}

at the top of this article. Jjok 18:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for neutral opening sentence

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima in Japanese and Liancourt Rocks in English, are internationally-recognized disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are currently controlled and administered by South Korea and supported by North Korea, but claimed by Japan.

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

references

coreans may say that "internationally-recognized disputed" is japanese pov though it is a fact and very important description on the islets Jjok 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "internationally-recognized disputed" is a bit awkward. After all, what does that mean exactly? It leaves out what countries "international" is referring to, and it's also a bit unclear as to what they're recognized as. The "supported by North Korea" bit is a bit unclear as well. After all, it doesn't say how it is North Korea supports them. Your suggestion may be a step in the right direction though. Rōnin 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't know, there really is no dispute because it is only the Japanese who are claiming Dokdo. Korea already has control over it. The paragraph slightly contradicts between itself. Good friend100 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Korea doesn't claim Dokdo as its territory, then Japan can just go in and take it. Rōnin 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim a territory while it is already under your control. Good friend100 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rōnin, now you understand that it has mean for coreans. I am ok to remove the japanese (as you can see, they really say so) and worldwide-povy "internationally-recognized" though it neutralizes current heavily corean-poved article a little. Coreans do not want to admit that the rocks are disputed (regardless they are under corean control) and pretend that they do not know the dispute is internationally-recognized. However, thanks to their fantastic president who declared to quit "calm diplomacy", it is time for them to admit it and support their president's holy battle against japanese imperialism in front of the other nations. I think it is a good starting point for them to know how the world recognize the issue and for the other nations to share their strange view point and logic. Jjok 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

revised a little

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima in Japanese and Liancourt Rocks in English, are ^{internationally-recognized} disputed islets exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but also claimed by Japan. North Korea supports South Korea in rejecting Japan's claim.

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

I still don't agree to the "internationally recognized dispute" part. Good friend100 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the words are odd though it is encouraged to write your opinion a little bit more. I also think "disputed" is enough pov for them and it still works to neutralize the article. I started feeling that it is necessary to add to aid understanding corean position that "coreans insist that the rocks are not disputed since they are under corean control and the world should support respect the corean position." Jjok

This is just my opinion, of course, but except that I'm still skeptical about the "internationally-recognized" bit, I think it seems quite fair and balanced. I think the word "that" should be inserted so that it says "islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands", but otherwise it seems to me like a good suggestion for a rewrite. I hope others will take time to voice their opinion of it as well. Rōnin 02:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Current

Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima). The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles, and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".[14]

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

Suggestion --Jjok 03:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima in Japanese and Liancourt Rocks in English, are disputed islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but also claimed by Japan. North Korea supports South Korea in rejecting Japan's claim.

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

I disagree. I have already wrote above that only Japan claims Dokdo, while Korea asserts its own right over Dokdo and controls it. Good friend100 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Korean troops control the island no more than the US soldiers "control" Korea (where they are stationed). The Japanese government allows their presence on its own territory, but this doesn't make it true that Korea administers or controls the island. Japan conducts its own research, projects, etc. regarding the area, for example. Or are you saying that the US administers Korea? LactoseTI 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On Dokdo, there is no military personnell. There reside some police men. Ginnre 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong anology. Thats not the same case. Is Korea a territory of the USA? No of course not.

"this doesn't make it true that Korea administers or controls the island". Japan conducts its own projects. If Korea has such a weak control over Dokdo, then how come the Japanese argument over Dokdo is weak and they are unable to change the name to "Takeshima". Japan is an influential and powerful nation. Korea should be nothing to them. Good friend100 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing in circles. You're saying it's Korean territory because it's Korean territory. The registered international names, incidently, are in fact the Japanese ones. It's why Korea is eager to try to rename them (internationally) but are currently refraining from doing so. While they had thought to do it, it would most likely result in the matter ending up in international arbitration, which Korea would most likely lose (it's the official reason why S. Korea backed down their recent proposal). LactoseTI 02:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a Japanese person at the international court of justice and Korea does not want to have the disadvantage. And how am I arguing in circles? There is no point to do a reevaluation of Dokdo's territorial status. Korea has the stronger claim.

The only thing you believe that counts is the modern facts. Historically, Dokdo is Korean territory and you cannot deny that, considering how many sources Korea has. No wonder you don't ever mention past historical sources. Good friend100 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is clear that you are wrong, arguing with you here about it has no almost bearing on the article, and won't help enhance it in any way. LactoseTI 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong? How am I wrong?

I didn't start the argument. Good friend100 03:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I'd like to end it. As I said, it doesn't affect the article. LactoseTI 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Jjok's suggestion, too. Your suggestion looks like that for this article, the most important thing is to make sure that the islands are disputed area. Otherwise, why should the first sentence be written like that? In my opinion, current version is much better. However, if I consider Japanese opinion to modify it, what is enough as the first sentence is;

Dokdo (Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks) are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Isn't it? It is Japanese intention to make it known as a disputed area, therefore it is Japanese POV as is written in your suggestion, I think.

As I said earlier, since 1965, when Korea and Japan signed the Basic Relations Treaty, there has not been happening much regarding Dokdo for 30 years until the mid-ninties when Japan started to make real fuss about Dokdo, internationally. Actually there has not been much to write about that period. It is current and recent Japanese governments who wanted to make Dokdo a disputed area. From Korean side, there is nothing to dispute, of course. President Roh's no-more-calm-policy means that when Japan would provoke, Korea would response and answer their questions and make it known to the world. That's all. If they don't provoke, there is nothing to hear from Korean side. It is not a bilateral dispute. Who's provoking?

Therefore, I would suggest a just fact-based sentence as the first sentence, e.g. Dokdo (Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks) are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Then It could be described that the islands are currently administered by Korea and then about those Japanese movements to make it known as disputed area. That's the fact. On the other hand, 'internationally disputed' is an Japanese opinion, or what Japanese is advertising to the world. The world tends to easily accept the Japanese view because Japanese international clout is much bigger than Korean. To say it again, it is not correct just to set it as an disputed area. Ginnre 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The area of Takeshima (dokto) has been disputed since the invasion of Korea to Takeshima. Basic Relations Treaty had been concluded in the context of many Japanese fishermen had been arrested by Korean Gov, and in tha treaty as a matter of course, Takeshima's belongingness was not decided.

The fact that area has been disuputed is the fact which people can easily know, see CIA fact book. To write fact, not to write what you want. >Ginnre Mythologia 17:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand. The meaning of "a just fact-based sentence" is to write a sentence from the Korean's viewpoint, right? Ginnre Gegesongs 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Say whatever you want, guys, but your comments go nowhere. As long as you think Korea invaded 'Takeshima', you're hopeless. Don't you know Japan is lobbying hard to influence the CIA fact book? The CIA fact book used not to describe the dispute the current way before. As I said, it is Japanese clout and it's powerful. If Korea had that kind of power, do you think Japan still would insist on the islands?

I said a fact-based sentence of 'Dokdo (Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks) are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)'. What's wrong? Think before you write. Ginnre 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as the dispute is more or less the reason why anyone even knows about these rocks, as well as a major focus of the article itself, it would seem that including mention of the dispute somewhere in the first paragraph would be a logical thing to do. Since the last move dispute seemed to indicate that many people thought that this article should follow the pattern of Senkaku Islands, and since that article makes the dispute a part of the first sentence, it would seem to make sense to follow the pattern here. After all, Dokdo is a more or less uninhabitable island that has never had a significant population of permanent residents, meaning that the whole history section of this article is basically about various confrontations between Japan and Korea over the islets and about the relative claims each has on the islets. The history section is more or less about the dispute and comprises at least half of the body of the article. The first paragraph of the article is basically supposed to be a summary of the article itself, and seeing as the history section of the article basically treats the islands as if they were disputed, it simply doesn't seem logical to bring up unreferenced claims that Japan is just 'making the dispute up' in the very first paragraph or sentence. --Zonath 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If WP is an encyclopedia, what's wrong with 'Dokdo (Takeshima, Liancourt Rocks) are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)' as the first sentence? About dispute you can describe in the following sentences. If you would follow a previous example, well, I think at least the nature of the dispute should be explained. It is Japan who is provoking. Ginnre 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are a paradox.>Ginnre If Japan has clout and it's powerful, why hopeless?

By the way, what I want to say is that WP isn't for propaganda but a Encyclopedia, so we must write the fact, and don't write a propaganda. If the CIA fact book didn't mentioned the dispute, we should write it in as far as it can be confirmed through a material. And we can easily confirm the dispute with the CIA fact book, so we must write the dispute, of course. Mythologia 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I used hopeless for the term invasion. You don't normally use that kind of word in this kind of discussion.

I don't oppose to write about dispute in the opening paragraph, but I don't think Jjok's suggestion is a good one, either. When you read the current version, it is obvious that there is a dispute, too. Why would Jjok's suggestion be preferred than the current one? Ginnre 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think hopless about using the term invasion. I think that it will be called that Korea invaded "Takesiha" at some future date when this disupute will be ended. >Ginnre

And I prefer the Jjok's suggestion than the current version, because Jjok's version is a better expression of current state. Mythologia 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard such a lobbying. Please teach it in detail. Even if there was a plot, it gives a current argument no influence. It does not have influence in the fact that there is a dispute. Gegesongs 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is Japan who is provking. Shouldn't that fact be described in the sentence, too? CIA fact book used only 'Dokdo' for the islands until 2002. In 2004 the book started to write Dokdo/Takeshima and reintroduced the name 'Liancourt Rocks' [15]. It is an article in a Korean newspaper, but you can translate the page at, for example, www.enjoykorea.jp

What is the background of the change? It is exactly what Japan intended to do, and after the CIA fact book used the two names side by side, most of the major website in the world followed that pattern. Korea didn't ask the CIA to write the name that way. Then why? If the term 'dispute' must be used in the opening paragraph, it should be described that it is a recent happening induced by Japan, I think. Ginnre 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you're going to bring up the World Factbook, you might try actually using it as a reference to back up your argument. For your convenience, I did a quick survey of how this dispute and the islets have been described in the World Factbook since 1990.

• 1990-1997 - "Liancourt rocks claimed by Japan." [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (Note: Most of these links are text file versions of the entire factbook and take a long time to load.)
• 1998-2000 "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Tokdo) claimed by Japan" [24] [25] [26]
• 2001-2002 "Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Tokdo) disputed with Japan" [27] [28]
• 2003 "Liancourt Rocks (Take-shima/Tok-do) are disputed with Japan" [29]
• 2004 "unresolved dispute with Japan over Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima) and occasional protests over fishing rights in grounds also claimed by Japan" [30]
• 2005-Present "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954" [31]

From what I can see from the above sources, the CIA factbook has never referred to the islets solely as "Dokdo", nor is "Liancourt Rocks" a revival of some name that was disused prior to 2002. The language does change in 1998 from 'claimed by Japan' to 'disputed with Japan', but absent a verifiable source that can show some sort of concerted lobbying effort by the Japanese to change the factbook, I doubt there is any kind of sinister conspiracy behind this, nor should we read such into the changes in the factbook text without more confirmation. In addition, the assertion that 'most websites changed to use Liancourt Rocks after the factbook did' seems unlikely, seeing as how Liancourt Rocks has been the primary name used by the Factbook since 1990, when the WWW was more or less non-existant. The only news articles I could find on the subject seemed to more or less follow the arguments here (although they have a slightly different take on the naming thing), but also seemed to more or less quote VANK exclusively, and fail to mention any kind of reliable source where VANK might have gotten its information. Personally, I don't really care whether the language in the first paragraph says that the islets are 'disputed between Korea and Japan', 'claimed by both Korea and Japan', or 'administered by Korea, but also claimed by Japan' (or any variation of these). I simply think that since the dispute takes up so much of this article, it should at least be at least mentioned in some way in the opening sentence or opening paragraph, in as neutral a way as possible. --Zonath 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima in Japanese and Liancourt Rocks in English, are islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are claimed by South Korea and Japan and occupied by South Korea since 1954. North Korea supports South Korea in rejecting Japan's claim.

wow, incredibly neutral which may be never achievable on wikipedia Jjok

Thank you for offering a useful document. Now I understand. I think that the lobbying of Japan is true. In addition, I surely feel that there is a dispute which is recognized in the world. So we should write the dispute. It is a fact that there is an dispute even if caused by Japanese pressure. The dispute is recognized in the world, right? Gegesongs 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is written that the dispute is induced by Japan. Ginnre 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gegesongs. And I add that if they thought it's a raid by Korea, not using armed strength, but the lobbying is better for world peace, as long as it was effective. That's natural and rightful of Japanese lobbying activity.Mythologia 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, the world would be described just as what the powerful few countries say. Like the iraq war is justified even though the US didn't find any evidence of WMD. Japan wanna be a US in asia? Ginnre 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that thousands of Japanese fishmen were arrested and dozens of them were killed by Korean Gov. was a historical fact. See Syngman Rhee line. In either case people thought that is a raid by Korean Gov. or not, the existence of conflict can't be denied. Your attempts to hide this fact is an obstacle to settle a dispute by peaceful means. >Ginnre Mythologia 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Is it true? I cannot believe. If it is true, it may be appropriate to express with "dispute" rather than "claim". The fact dozens of people were murdered is a good reason to describe "dispute". Gegesongs 09:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your research, Zonath. The article I referred to was not quite right. Indeed, the description never used Dokdo only. It was on the map that the name of 'Liancourt Rocks' appeared for the first time in 2004. However, by and large, it is true that the CIA fact book follows what Japan insists, and it looks like the US never considered Korean opinion. Ginnre 02:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The CIA factbook was edited because of pressure from the Japanese and their large influence over the world, since they have one of the largest economies.

I have to repeat this all the time. Its not a dispute. Its only a one sided claim from Japan while Korea believes that Dokdo is already Korean territory and have a right to own it. Good friend100 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a straw man. Japan believes that it is already Japanese territory, and that it has a right to own it. One could just as easily say Korea is making the "one sided claim"--although both are false--it's disputed, although the international decisionmaking process has tended to side with the Japanese claim. LactoseTI 04:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think CIA adapted WP:NPOV[32] or they just remembered how they drafted San Francisco Treaty. As you can see in the second link in the suggestion, EU also recognizes the dispute and urges to seek bilateral agreements.[33] EU+US. I think we do not have to hesitate to say it is internationally recognized dispute. Thus, the argument is, is it worth to add “disputed” or not. I added it since it summarizes the particular feature of the rocks employing a simple word as pointed out by Zonath. Jjok 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the international decisionmaking sides with the Japanese, then how come the territory hasn't been turned over to the Japanese side. They had 50 years to do it. The reason why it is hard for Japan to control and own Dokdo is because Japan's historical claim is weaker than Korea's. Everything doesn't revolve around the "modern times", as everyone is using Japan's world influence to their advantage. Also, the Takeshima side refers to only the international court of justice since they are more supportive of Japan. World history never began in 1910. And the usage of only the modern times shows a ton of Japan supporting facts.

Just because history is history, that doesn't mean the facts are history. Facts from history are true and avoiding Dokdo's history around Korea and Japan does not mean the events during the modern times will help Japan's claim on Dokdo. Good friend100 01:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion 2 --Jjok 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima and Liancourt Rocks, are islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are claimed by South Korea and Japan and occupied by South Korea since 1954. North Korea supports South Korea in rejecting Japan's claim.

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

Doesn't "occupued by South Korea since 1954" sound very supportive of the Japanese claim? I thought that the previous version was better... Rōnin 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is better, but I don't like the "claimed be Korea and Japan". It weakens Korea's position because Korea currently controls it. The paragraph sounds like Japan has a foothold on Dokdo because it doesn't mention anything about Korea's position of Dokdo. Also, Korea does not claim Dokdo. They simply believe that Dokdo is their territory and ignore Japanese claims. Rather, it is merely a one sided claim by Japan. Good friend100 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the current version in the article is better than Jjok's suggestion. However, since it won't reach any consensus with the current version, let me talk about my opinion on your suggestion. Considering the nature of the 'recent' dispute being induced by Japan and it's been long since Korea actually began to administer the islands, I think it's more appropiate to say first that South Korea administers the islands before the dispute is mentioned. So I suggest the second sentence as follows;

The islets are controlled and administered by South Korea, but Japan disputes the sovereignity of South Korea on the islets.

'disputes' is more stonger than 'claims', and it is Japan who is doing that more and more, hence reflecting the current situation more exactly. It is not correct that 'The islets are claimed by South Korea and Japan'. The islets are controlled and administered, not claimed, by Korea but that is disputed (the islands being no more claimed) by Japan. Ginnre 02:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the edited sentence. However, there is only a one sided claim on the island itself. Good friend100 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for opening paragraph:

Dokdo, also known as Takeshima and Liancourt Rocks, are islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are considered by both South Korea and Japan as part of their respective territories. The islets have been under the continual posession and administration of South Korea since 1954. North Korea supports South Korea in rejecting Japan's claim.

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

Explanations:

• Rather than 'claim' or 'dispute' (since neither side can agree on either term), I think just mentioning that each country considers the islets as part of its territory is as NPOV as we can really get.
• Instead of 'occupation' (which some think might be POV), 'possession and administration', which I think more aptly descirbes the status quo without seemng to pass judgment.
• Continual posession and administration - South Korea's posession of the islets has been more or less uninterrupted since 1954.

--Zonath 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zonath--nice effort at making it as neutral as possible. One thing--controlled is "fairly" clear, although many would prefer occupied (although I can see that being interpretted as a POV word, perhaps)--to balance it, why not change "posession" to "control," which is more accurate. Both claim they hold the territory.

Less clear is "administered"--both sides perform all governmental tasks normally connected with administering territory, including scientific experiements, local accounting/registries, etc. Might it be a good idea to have "been controlled militarily"? Otherwise, control might itself imply governmental administration. LactoseTI 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be amenible to 'control' rather than 'posession'. On the other hand, 'controlled militarily', while it might be literally true, is unlikely to be acceptible to those advocating the Korean point of view, since Korea contends that its occupation of the island is not a military one, even to the point of stationing (heavily armed) civilian police on the islands rather than military ones. I really do think 'occupied' is more accurate in the sense that Korea has stationed people on the island, but I think a lot of people are unwilling use that term because of the possible negative connotations of hostility and illegitimacy. I guess 'Korea has controlled the islets' encapsulates the situation well enough without being likely to be misconstrued. --Zonath 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I might also suggest that the article flip between Korea and Japan perspective in the opening paragraph on alternating sections (for example, swapping the order of the second section) rather than imply some kind of bias to one side of the dispute or another. (I hope no one will be petty enough to argue about "who goes first," though!) LactoseTI 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that really matter? Whether which country is named first? When Korea wanted "World Cup Korea/Japan" instead of "World Cup Japan/Korea" I believe the Japanese felt the Koreans were too picky. "Who goes first" isn't all that important.

I disagree with the usage "controlled militarily". Good friend100 01:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion

• Rather than 'claim' or 'dispute' (since neither side can agree on either term), I think just mentioning that each country considers the islets as part of its territory is as NPOV as we can really get.

I think japanese side does not oppose to both. It is disputed because both claim, thus disputed=claimed by both. The real problem is coreans admit neither it is disputed nor claimed by japan in some cases.

• Instead of 'occupation' (which some think might be POV), 'possession and administration', which I think more aptly describes the status quo without seemng to pass judgment.

possession means sovereignty and does not sound neutral.

Possession does not necessarily imply sovereignty or ownership over something, but if you don't think the term is neutral enough, then by all means, please do suggest an alternative. -Zonath 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

pos·ses·sion

3. POLITICS colony: a country or region controlled or governed by another country (often used in the plural)

4. state of being controlled: the condition of being controlled by or appearing to be controlled by a supernatural force or strong emotion

7. LAW occupancy: the physical occupancy of something, for example, a house, whether or not accompanied by ownership

Encarta(R) World English Dictionary

maybe 4. Jjok

1. 4 isn't really applicable, since it refers to supernatural forces, as in the sentence, "John was possessed by evil spirits." #7 only refers to occupancy, and not to ownership (as stated in the definition itself) -- see adverse possession for an example of how the word is used in its legal sense (without necessarily having ownership). #3 seems most on-point to the discussion here, but seems to be the noun form of the word, as 'Dokdo is an overseas possession of South Korea'. If we're not going to use 'possession' to describe Korea's relationship to the islets, then I'm pretty much stumped as to what word we should use. Suggestions? --Zonath 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Continual possession and administration - South Korea's possession of the islets has been more or less uninterrupted since 1954.

why don't you mention that japan possessed uninterrupted sovereignity during 1905 to 2006 according to the San Francisco treaty? In this case, japansese pov is “illegally occupied” and corean pov is “administered,” “controlled (this is relatively neutral),” and “possessed.” “Occupied” seems closer to japanese pov since whatever weakens corean religion is evil though I think CIA very carefully chose it as a npov term in the Factbook.

• Again, please go ahead and suggest an alternative. Of course, we could just omit the 'continual' term if you're really opposed. We could simply state that "The islets have been under the control of South Korea since 1954" and leave it at that. --Zonath 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan. Takeshima is used mostly in Japan. The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks. Korea has had continual possesion of Dokdo since 1954. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles, and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".[1]

South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture. Good friend100 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the unknown person's opinion on the suggestion to help write this suggestion down. Good friend100 06:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know you want to suggest in there.but if you want to suggest "opening paragraph",pease insist "opening paragraph" section.--Forestfarmer 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100's suggestion is essentially same as the current opening, I think. Although I think the current opening is better than any suggestions here, because the dispute here will not be solved without changing the current one, I think Zonath's suggestion is the most suitable candidate.

By the way, somebody's talking about military presence on Dokdo, and it's been repeated, but it's just wrong. They are police and NOT heavily armed. They have small arms (rifles) only and that level of arms is just common at usual police stations in Korea. It has been like that more than 30 years because there was no need to station military force or upgrade the arms there. Please think about it what this means regarding the term 'dispute'. From Korean side, there is no dispute on Dokdo as well. Therefore, in principle, mentioning 'dispute' would be Japanese POV. In Korean point of view, they 'claim' Dokdo as the CIA fact book also put it until quite recently. Ginnre 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"They are police and NOT heavily armed. They have small arms (rifles) only and that level of arms is just common at usual police stations in Korea." I suppose 'heavily armed' is a subjective term [34], but I would personally categorize assault rifles as heavy armament. At any rate, you're right... They're police, and not military. After all, the name badges are the wrong color for them to be military. --Zonath 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reference describes well about Korean and Japanese sentiment about Dokdo. It was a good reading. I just mentioned 'not heavily' armed in the sense that the station is not particularly more armed than any other police station inland. Ginnre 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Korena police had to force Japanese ships from nearing Dokdo by mortar fire. Just because they are the police does not mean that they are weaker. Of course the military is armed with more weapons but the police stationed at Dokdo are only for small protection. I don't think Japan would invade Dokdo. That would be calling for war. Good friend100 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well assault rifles and mortars, then. Although the incident with the mortar fire happened in the 1950s, and they aren't necessarily there anymore. Information about the types of armament the police have on the islands is, predictably, hard to come by. At any rate, while the words 'heavily armed' might have been too subjective for some, the police on the islets definitely have some teeth. --Zonath 09:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

yet another suggestion for neutral opening sentence

OK, here's a neutral one (I hope)--at least, we're working toward something acceptable, I think:

"[Whatevername1], also known as [Whatevername2] and [Whatevername3], are islets that exist between Ulleungdo and Oki Islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The islets are considered by both South Korea and Japan as part of their respective territories. South Korea has had a military presence on the islets since 1954. North Korea supports South Korea in opposing Japan's claim.

Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture, while South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province."

I think this is basically the same as Zonath's, but more clearly states the unambiguous facts--the only undisputed fact (worldwide, no one disputes, I mean) is that Korea's military has a presense on the island. That's about it... both sides administer it, both sides claim control, both sides claim possession, etc. No one is arguing that there aren't troops there. Having troops in a place means something specific; the readers aren't idiots, they can piece together the controversy and also see both points of view evenly.

I think that there is no one sentence there that can be pointed to as POV biased--it's just the basic facts. After that, a reasonable discussion/explanation of the viewpoints can ensue. Komdori 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of 'military presence', your suggestion is not acceptable and Zonath's suggestion is better. It is simply wrong that Korea has military presence on Dokdo. They are police and it's kind of outpost at the end of the territory. They are not heavily armed but have small arms (rifles), which is common at usual police stations in Korea. Korea has no reason and need to put military on Dokdo because there has not been any threat from the outside world and for Korean, it is not an disputed area. It has been like that for more than 30 years. Ginnre 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"that level of arms is just common at usual police stations in Korea."

I heard demonstration in SK is very violent thus this kind of stuff is necessary at usual police stations.[35]] Jjok

I remembered usual tall buildings in Seoul have this kind of stuff. Very common view in SK. Jjok

Why are you so twisted? What is very common? Ginnre 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an antiaircraft fire as you see. Jjok

I agree with Komdori's description. Ginnre's opinion is a nonsense. Because, several Japanese fishermen were killed by South Korea as a fact.--Celldea 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Only 1 fisherman died and it was more than 40 years ago. At that time, Japanese so looked down upon Korea, they just ignored Korean authorities, otherwise they couldn't behave themselves like that. Maybe they're still doing so. On this page, several pro-Japanese writings are just so silly, cynical and arrogant. Ginnre 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They are police but that doesn't mean that they are "weak". It is a "military presence" because I dont think the Korean police has the power to station policemen onto Dokdo. The Korean government administers that. The "soldiers" (or "police") are not there to prevent an invasion from battleships or fighter jets. They simply guard Dokdo and prevent anybody from landing. Good friend100 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the police agency in Korea in pretty much centrally-administered, like just about everything else. There's not really the sort of separation between national and local police as there is in other jurisdictions (like the USA). I would guess that the police can pretty much go wherever the government in Seoul sends them. One of the SK government info pages on Dokdo states that the troops on the islet are part of the Gyeongsangbukdo police. --Zonath 00:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In Korean, they're called 'Jeon Gyung' and it is kind of the lowest rank in police. 'Gyung' means police as is police called 'Gyung Chal' in Korean, which would be pronounced 'Ke Satz' in Japanese. Ginnre 02:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The troops are actually trained in army and loaned to police. SK gov. has not wanted to station any "army troops" there since it can be recognized as invasion and will invoke massive reaction of japan. The claim of SK on the islets is self claim and no country except NK supports it. Japanese sovereignty is recognized at least 45 countries who signed and ratified San Francisco Treaty. (signed countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, South Africa, UK, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam) I think SK gov. already asked to several countries of those to support SK position, though they have got reply such as the Rusk documents and the Van Fleet Report, that has been hidden from SK nations to manipulate them as usual as in the case of JK Basic Treaty. Otherwise, the country should be already announced as a brotherhood country of corea by SK gov. Therefore, if SK sent the army to the islets, those countries and UN would start mediation process, in the most favored case for SK, on neutral ground, and most probably, ask for the withdrawal of any activity from the islets based on the San Francisco Treaty and strongly urge the resolution at ICJ. This is the reason why US and other nations seem taking pro-japan position for coreans though it is just based on facts and laws.

At this point, I wonder why self-claimed SK position needs to be written so favorably compared to japan. It looks like "sunshine policy" or "peace for our time" of which outcome are always like NK and Nazi expansionism. I think there is no necessity to indulge coreans about terminology, such as "disputed" and "both claimed" are pro-japan terms as a result of SK gov's manipulation and brainwashing education from kindergartens or earlier. Jjok

After all, Dokdo was not mentioned in SF treaty. You cannot say in favor of Japan with that document. And I'll just repeat what I have written.

Considering that Japan lobbied hard, in a deceitful way, to delete Dokdo from the treaty draft while Republic of Korea just formed, having not much power and order after that long exploitation of Japan, and was in a war, I don't know how valid Japanese claim is. Please be aware that your insertion is unilateral (and arrogant considering the history) and cannot be much accepted outside of Japan. Ginnre 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Japanese fishermen were killed by South Korean soldiers. But its exxagerated when "30, 40, or 50 people were killed". Also, the Koreans were forced to fire to prevent them from landing on Dokdo. Korea already announced Japan to stay away from Dokdo. Korean mortar teams didn't just aim shells at peaceful Japanese fishing ships for no reason. >Celldea Good friend100 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. 44 are killed or injured, according to the Ja wiki article (ja:Syngman Rhee line), and 1 was killed.(Dong-A Ilbo 2006.01.18 By the way, this article is interesting. It highly implies SK successfully "stole" the islets against the protests of US, China, and Japan. Peace line.. It was a nice joke for them.) I could not correct en:Syngman Rhee line accordingly because of the block. Jjok

Oh you can read Korean? How about an English article about the casualties? [36]Ginnre 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No i can't. I usually try to find corean or english sources since they seem more persuasive for people support corean view because most of them can read corean language. The article you showed is informative.

"Dokdo is actively promoted in Korea as a prime example of Japanese aggression, with the islets viewed as one of the first of Japan's many 20th century land grabs. Korean kindergartens teach children songs about Korea's glorious eastern islands, the Dokdo. ... According to a report by Peter Beck, the Northeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group, "One would be hard pressed to find a single Korean over the age of five willing to admit that control of Dokdo does not matter."

and these are the outcome.[37][38] very dangerous hatred education which looks pretty similar to the fascistic education in imperial japan during the WWII.. Jjok

Maybe that site is quite popular in Japan. User:Shougiku Wine also referred to the site. So what they learn? So fascistic a Korea will sooner or later attack Japan? Come on, cool down. Yes, Korean children learn in school that Japan did very bad things to Korea some time ago. These paintings are motivated by what they have learned and, of course, childish. It would be a serious problem if they do the same thing when they grow up, but they don't. Don't worry. Korea is a civilized country, too. However, you'll never understand what it was like to learn that your grand and great-grandparents lived a miserable life with their names forced to be changed to Japanese ones, to speak Japanese, and watching their sisters hauled to sex slavery and brothers to coal mining working to their death. How could you know? In that sense, they are so frequently arrogant about this kind of problem because they are so ignorant about the history. Ginnre 05:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The time article says only 1 Japanese person was killed (???). Exxagerating information just makes yourself look bad when the truth is revealed. Good friend100 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodfriend, unbelievable your comment! There is no problem because murdered people is very few, don't you??? When did Korea become such a lawless nation? Anyway, most important point what the several japanese fisherman ware murdered by Korean government's military force. Therefore, Ginnre's claim is not correct.--Celldea 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did't say that's no problem that only 1 fisherman died. That was very bad thing of course. It was a tragic clash between them, but what I intended to say was what was the background. And which claim of mine is not correct? Ginnre 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you keep bringing this issue up? What is it going to do? Bringing up of how Japanese fishermen were killed by Korean soldiers does not help this talk page. Now its just making Korea look bad and as if Japan did nothing. Good friend100 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

link

Here is a link I found. There is information that could help on Korean-Japanese controversies. [39] Good friend100 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

don't paste link unrelated to Liancourt Rocks.What would you insist ?--Forestfarmer 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to want to maintain his opinion somehow or other. Gegesongs 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I said "information that could help on Korean-Japanese controversies". Not just Dokdo.

"He seems to want to maintain his opinion somehow or other". Look who's talking. Too bad you didn't get to see what happened to this talk page about 3 months ago when Japan side users and users from nichanneru decided to vandalize this page. Good friend100 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is serious. where is evidence ? Where shall we appeal ? --Forestfarmer 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Its either in the archives or too old for it to be in the history of this talk page. You don't have to appeal. The vandalism just weakened the Japanese side. It didn't do anything else. Good friend100 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Vandalism and Korean anti-Japanese sentiment are irrelevant to Liancourt Rocks. We should concentrate on the argument of Liancourt Rocks. The link you pasted is aimed for a bias against the Japanese. I believe that it is necessary to exclude the bias. Gegesongs 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

his act is hard to understand. what would he be doing ?--Forestfarmer 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion for the opening paragraph you wrote is biased. >Forestfarmer Good friend100 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your act.is this section "link" ? what are your insistence?--Forestfarmer 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All you say are irrevelent questions that just add more tension to both sides. >Forestfarmer Good friend100 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

are you broken radio ?--Forestfarmer 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Goodfriend's act is REALLY vandlism. Goodfriend, please Cool down and read WP:NOT and WP:Civil. --Junmai 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,but I could not endure his vandalism.--Forestfarmer 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reasons why I have been vandalizing this page? What have I said that is vandalism? I don't think I am on a Korean propoganda campaign. Good friend100 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If so, then how? Good friend100 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

found a map

I found this map. Its by Hayashi Shihei, in 1785. He named it "map of three adjoining countries", meaning Japan, Korea, and China. In it he colors Korea yellow and Japan as green. Clearly, Dokdo and Ulleungdo are named Korean territory and colored in yellow. Its hard to see, but there is a yellow spot in the Sea of Japan on the map. Good friend100 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear at all. Do you have larger one? Hayashi Shihei's 三国通覧図説? This one?[40] Maybe you can read upside-downed 竹嶋 on Ulleungdo Jjok

Goodfriend, I think you should learn history more. Do you know the following two histrical facts?

1. In Japan, the Ulleungdo was named "Takeshima", and the Dokdo was named "Matsushima" until the Meiji era.
2. In Korea, it was thought that fictional island "Palangdo" is existing really until Japanese Annexation of Korea.

An island drawn as "竹嶋" with this map is Ulleungdo obviously. Moreover, small Chukudo aside, it is clear. And it is "Palangdo" which is drawn beside the peninsula.--Celldea 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, nearly all the Takeshima side uses "Jukdo" and "Palangdo" as an excuse to use them. I hear that all the time. The above map clearly shows that even a Japanese historian wrote that Dokdo is Korea territory. Or is it because you are angry because it is true? Good friend100 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, did you happen to get a chance to read the two comments between the two that you made? They explain the map that you are discussing cogently; it's worth spending the time to figure out exactly what they're saying. Komdori 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, You are a really Korean model. Somebody shown evidence, and you cannot argue against an argument, you excited immediately. "It's a lie! It's a lie!.....it's an excuse! It's an excuse!........My opinion is only right!!" Hahaha...--Celldea 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa don't get so worked up about it. Wow. The above map is correctly drawn by a Japanese, and it shows Dokdo and Ulleungdo as Korean territory. I'll offer a chill pill, Celldea Oyo321 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This map is famous for an inaccurate one. Have you really seen this map in detail?Liancourt Rocks is not drawn in this map. Do you think that Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks are the same islands? Why do you make an interpretation to suit your own convenience? Gegesongs 06:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses.--Junmai 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The source is from Dokdo Research and Preservation Association & Dokdo Institute 2006. And I'm not angry. The ones angry are the ones who disagree with the changed title to "Dokdo". If you think I am angry and "only me opinions" are right, there wouldn't have been any response to me in the first place from you. If you think I am embarressing myself then you shouldn't have wrote down all that "hahaha" and "chill pill" which are irrevelent to this talk page.

If everyone believes that this map is false then stop attacking the map and instead upload an image or something that shows clearly that Dokdo is Japanese territory. Good friend100 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we can believe that this map is correct, but just the name of the islands is different from todays naming in Japan. I cannot read Hangeul, but I suppose from the figures that the discussion[41] which Jjok sited must have resolved that Takeshima (Bamboo Island) and Matsushima (Pine-tree Island) are known to Japan and Takeshima is today's Ulleungdo and Matsushima is today's Dokdo (Takeshima Island, Liancourt Rocks). In conclusion, the map doesn't tell anything about the belonging of Dokdo. It is very sad that we must be so nervous about such a small islets. Nobody must have cared about the islets in the days of this map, because the islets could not support human life. NO resource other than sea lion which must be extinct until today. Very boring. --Isorhiza 13:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why Japan wants Dokdo under their territory so much is because of the possible gas reserves located near Dokdo. Also, there is an abundant fish supply ideal for its fish economy. Japan's stimulant is just really for economical reasons. Thtats basically what Japan wants. Good friend100 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't mislead the discussion, Good friend100. I have written as my own thoughts that there must have been no value in the islets in the days when the map was produced, but that is not the main point of my conclusion. Moreover, your comment is about current value of the islets but I have never written about that. Further, I have never heard of natural gas reserve near the islets, but this is totally wrong dirrection to discuss. Your comment have no ground here. Should delete the comment if you would like to maintain your impression smart. --Isorhiza 04:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This map is by a French geologist named J.B D'Anville in 1737. He named it "Royaume de Coreé", which is "Map of Joseon". The map includes Dokdo as Korean territory. Good friend100 22:

The map is large but Dokdo can be found right by Korea on the east coast to the south. Good friend100 05:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, would you find larger one? I can not read any character at the south east end island and actually it seems like tsushima island, isn't it? Do Coreans need to use this kind of low quality stuff for explanation of their claim? Anyway, I think you would better explain this 1531 map first.[42] Maybe, compass does not work there... Jjok

Just because you cannot read it doesn't mean its true. And its not like I upload false images that are fake. I researched on both pictures. I am not talking about Tsushima island. There are (if you can see it) two small islands right next to Korea's east coast near the middle.

Can I ask you a question? Are you supporting the Dokdo side or the Takeshima side? Good friend100 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This map is very famous, but it is irrelevant to this article. Liancourt Rocks is not drawn on this map. Do you know where there is Liancourt Rocks? If islands are drawn on this map, they are irrelevant to Liancourt Rocks. Is Liancourt Rocks so near from Korea? Please read WP:NOR. Gegesongs 07:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo and Ulleungdo are shown on the map. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean this map is fake or something. This is the largest I can get!!! Stop complaining just because you don't like the map.

Of course Dokdo is not so near Korea but the map itself is a pretty crude picture of Korea. You can't blame him for putting the 2 islands on the wrong spot. For a French map 300 years ago thats average. I don't think North America was drawn correctly by English colonists. And how is this irrevelent? It shows that Dokdo is part of Korea.

The information is from Dokdo Research and Preservation Association & Dokdo Institute. Good friend100 14:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read what is written on the map. At least the lower map doesn't include Dokto (Liancourt Rocks). This map may be intended to describe penninsula and islands precisely, because latides and longitudes are described. Liancourt Rocks is not so near the penninsula. --Isorhiza 09:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I already explained. The map is 300 years old and I don't think people would be able to draw maps accurately back then. The picture of Korea is pretty ugly itself. The author probably estimated where Dokdo and Ulleungdo is, not that he really thinks Dokdo is that close to Korea.

I don't think the word "precisely" fits because simply the entire map is not precise at all. Good friend100 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maps of the age were not very precise -- after all, they had to make a lot of estimates, and didn't have aerial imagery. It's completely possible that one of the islands on the map is supposed to refer to Dokdo. However, I would also question what exactly it proves. After all, it's a French map, and we don't necessarily know the circumstances of its making. Was the mapmaker commissioned by the Joseon court to make a map of Korea (is it an official map)? Was the mapmaker ever actually in Korea, or did he just put the map together based on older maps and journal accounts?

Does any map conclusively show that Dokdo belonged to Korea? Of course not. After all, anyone can draw up a map that shows anything. I could draw a map that shows all of Northeast Asia as belonging to Pakistan, but it doesn't make it an accurate map. All that can really be done with maps in this particular instance is to show: A) The approximate date each side became aware of Dokdo, based on the earliest extant map that shows the islets; and B) which country the mapmaker thought the islets belonged to. A), when taken together with various other documents of the time, can possible show the dates of any claims on the islets, as well as when those claims were forgotten or relinquished (if that happened). B) pretty much only conclusively demonstrates which color the islets are drawn with on the map. --Zonath 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on D'Anville in fact on Wikipedia. But it doesn't mention anything about his map on Dokdo. Good friend100 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand which island you are talking about. The island described to the south-east of the penninsula is, with no doubt, Tsushima Island from its size and distance. Which island do you mean Dokto? --Isorhiza 07:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally found a link where the captions on the map are readible, here. However, none of the place names appears to be in Korean (for example, the two islands near the middle are labelled, 'Fan-Ling-Tao" and "Tchian-Chan-Tao"). Chances are, the mapmaker was using a source map that was labelled in Chinese, and transliterated the names as if they were Chinese words, rather than Korean ones. So, anyone want to take a stab at figuring out the modern-day place names? --Zonath 10:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Understand. Thank you for your input. But, read the "Other Maps and Records" section of Dokdo. European people didn't know about the islets until middle of 19th century. Further, the map have precise longitude and latitude coordination. I bet that Chin-do is described as Te-tching. Do you agree me? Then, where is Cheju-do? If this map includes so far-away islands as Ulleungdo or Dokdo, why most important island of Korea is not included? Insvesting more time in this map seems to be just a waste of time for us. It is obvious that there is no Ulleungdo or Dokdo in this map. In other word, we can prove nothing about Ulleungdo and Dokdo from this map. --Isorhiza 12:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Dokdo5.gif

The above is a document that states Dokdo is not Japanese territory. It was written in 1877 by the Japanese prime minister. There is also a translation. Good friend100 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why you cannot understand that the "Takeshima and the other island" mentioned in the reference is Ulleungdo and jukdo today? If this Takeshima means Dokdo, what is "the other island"? Dokdo has no major satelite island like Ulleungdo. --Isorhiza 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it partly hidden? It seems "after the conversation with joseon government, Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island (Chukdo) were determined as joseon teritory."

• outcome 대한지지 1899 [43]
• 1900, the Korean Empire issued Korean Government Imperial Ordinance 41
• Jan 28, 1905 Japan proclaimed Ryanko (Liancourt) Rocks as Takeshima. (what a silly naming. it should be Umeshima or something else...)
• Nov 17, 1905 Eulsa Treaty

Maybe, joseon government did not know dokdo became korean territory for more than 20 years... Jjok

All of this is irrelevent. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. —Aiden 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If so, then how? >Aiden Good friend100 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

and how is this original research? The document is real and it can be found in several internet sites. Good friend100 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodfriend, none of these maps and documents transparently show anything about Dokdo. It's not clear that any of them are showing Dokdo at all. Therefore, any arguments based on them involve someone's interpretation, not just a simple statement of facts. This is even more true given the fact that the same name has been applied to different islands over time. I think it's permissible to say that organization X claims that document Y shows Z. In the case of these maps, however, it's not possible for the article to say that any of them show Dokdo as Korean territory without venturing into the realm of non-neutral interpretation. --Reuben 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not a personal interpretation. Or am I lying about the facts of these? All I hear are complaining on how "I have a personal interpretation" and "my original research". I believe most of the Takeshima side users want to change the title to "Liancourt Rocks" or "Takeshima". If you think the title should be changed show some sources or proofs. I am simply showing maps and documents why Dokdo is Korean territory and therefore "Dokdo" should be used.

I have repeatedly asked why it is original research to the editors that reject the images I have uploaded, but I have no answer. Good friend100 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about changing the title. All I said is that none of the maps you have shown are self-evident proof of anything related to Dokdo. It's not clear to me that any of them refers to Dokdo. Tying them to Dokdo requires substantial interpretation. That can be either 1) your own interpretation, which is original research and can't go in Wikipedia; or 2) somebody else's interpretation, which can be described in the article and cited. The Wikipedia article should describe the dispute; we don't need to (and can't) resolve it here. --Reuben 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to solve the issue with the images. The images just clears up the argument a little bit more. Good friend100 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that those maps clear up anything about Dokdo. They only generate heat without shedding much light on the issue. --Reuben 00:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

warning:these all picture in this section don't seem to be public domain.ADDITIONALLY, I don't understand what user:goodfriendGood would insist in this section.all picuture is included wrong-license tag.if you don't write these picture's source.I would list in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.--Forestfarmer 11:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming they were produced in the United States, the maps are probably fine, since:

"Photographic reproductions, as a form of derivative work, may inherit the copyright of the original work. If that artwork is in the public domain, then so is the photograph. If, however, the depicted work is copyright protected, then, although there is no independent copyright on the photo itself, it cannot be considered to be in the public domain as the original rights holder still has the authority to control how reproductions of his work, including photographs, are made and distributed. The same applies to digitized images."

Since the maps are in public domain, it's a good bet that the images of those maps are as well. As for the document with the superimposed translation, I would have to question it, seeing as it includes original content (the translation). --Zonath 19:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that It is taken by american civil servant.especally third picture is edited.if it is not public domain.I do not know how he becomes.--Forestfarmer 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The maps are public domain because of their age (assuming they weren't made in the last 100 years). Since the images are basically just copies of public-domain works, to which nothing has been added, they don't gain any new copyrights. On the other hand, the third picture, since something has been added to it, might not be public domain, although I kind of doubt that what has been added would be considered original enough to create a derivative-work copyright. To be on the safe side though, it would probably be best to either get permission from the creator, or else just delete it. --Zonath 09:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I afraid that It seem to be taken in Japan.Therefore It follow on Japanese law.if it is used in U.S..because U.S concluded Berne Convention.taking a picture is creation activity in Japan.additionally in U.S. too if If he apply.put simply,the documents or map have no copy right but the person who takes pictures of documents or map have copy right in japan.do you understand ? --Forestfarmer 10:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is an "american civil servant"? Also, just because the image is in Japanese doesn't mean that it has a Japanese copyright. Good friend100 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know the copyright terribly.realy meaning of public domain is american civil servant's production while on duty."public domain" must not be used such a easily.Delete those soon if you do not want to blow yourself any futher.--Forestfarmer 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.I apologize your.I change my mind.These picture is really public domain.and user:Zonath is right.I was not clear about copy right.

yet don't forget that there is usually proprietary right and contract.I think yours might take from some kind of webpage.but your are not wrong at all.--Forestfarmer 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "Dokdo"?

I think anyone(even Koreans) cannot appreciate the meaning of "Dokdo". I think nobody knows. So "Dokdo" the title of this articles should be changed to "Takeshima Islands" because "Takeshima" is the only formal international name for the islands since 1905. Anyone can understand they are somewhat islands at least. Otherwise it should be replaced to "Liancourt Rocks" because this Wikipedia is English version.

Koreans are too self-satisfied and too nationalistic to admit. Admins should not admit Koreans' violations like this. Japanese have been only challenging to resolve the conflicts with very nationalistic Koreans without using any force. But it's always useless trying to persuade Koreans. If Japanese could use force to resolve territorial problems, Japanese have done long long ago　like WW2. How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans? If admins of English Wikipedia don't accept Japanese fair claims about "Takeshima Islands", I think all Japanese would have the rights to drop the atomic bombs to USA and Korea at least three times. Do you hope that? I think you've already done.

Besides I don't know the pronouciation of Korean name "Dokdo", "Ulleungdo", and so on. Can you(except Koreans) pronouciate them properly? Furthermore who understand that "Dokdo" is the appropriate name for the islands. "Dokdo"(独島) means "a lonely(独) island(島)" in English. But there are two islands at least. It's too ridiculous! On the other hand, "Takeshima islands(竹島 in Japanese)" means that the islands(島,shima) were used for one of relay stations to carry a lot of thick bampoos(竹,take) that were produced on the Ulleungdo(Ururun Islands in Japanese).

It is very clear which name is the best title to respect. Ithat is it's "Takeshima Islands"

First of all, please put {{pov}} at the top of this article. What terrible articles Koreans made one after another! --⇒Shougiku Wine 01:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious with bombing? Don't be silly and read before you write. Otherwise how can you be so ignorant about what's going on on this page? Read before you write. Nobody except some Japanese here will listen to you and this kind of writing will be just ignored. Ginnre 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans? How long cosmopolitans have to endure the Koreans' tyrannical attitude? Read my sentences again and again, and accept the meanings of them properly.--⇒Shougiku Wine16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact Koreans have bombed again in spite of international alerts. Why do you ignore the famous Korean fact? How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans? How long cosmopolitans have to endure the Koreans' tyrannical attitudes? Read my sentences again and again, and accept the meanings of them properly(if you can).--⇒Shougiku Wine17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Korean Fascism? part1

I don't have anything to say. The definition of "Dokdo" and what it means in its chinese form is irrevelent to this discussion. Good friend100 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say "I don't have anything to say, please don't say anything. This is, don't write anything. All right? And I think nobody can understand your sentences. What is more important, I think nobody can agree with Hwa-byung Korean attitudes that deny all fair discussions and only try to force Korean ideologies without discrimination. So I guess Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. --⇒Shougiku Wine17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, it seemed that Koreans, Ginnre, User:Good friend100 and so on have proved again and again that Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. If not, "Dokdo" never become to the title and fixed unfairly, pushing "Takeshima Islands" and "Liancourt Rocks" aside. However Koreans insist hard as if "Dokdo(Takeshima Islands, Liancourt Rocks)" belongs to Korea, in fact, Koreans' silly talks have never been approved as the fact more than fifty years. It seemed that it is only the calm before the storm. In fact, the heart of the problem is no more than that Japanese have borne well the humiliation from Koreans more than fifty years. In other words, as far as there are international ways to settle amicably, Japanese have not want to resolve by resorting to force even territorial problems according to the restriction of japanese peaceful constitution. Therefore it is only that Japanese have kept the right to drop the atomic bombs to USA, Korea and so on. Why does South Korea have never sue Japan for the territorial rights of "Takeshima Islands(Dokdo)", though Japan has propose the settlement by international organization to South Korea since 1954? This fact has gone on proving worldwide that "Takeshima Islands" belong to Japan and Koreans are only thieves. --⇒Shougiku Wine19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Korean Fascism? part2

Please refrain from making racial attacks and racist comments on talk pages -- it is considered vandalism. --Zonath 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• What!? Are you OK? It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against peaceful Japanese and ignorant other people. If not so, "Dokdo" cannot become the title of the article "Takeshima Islands(LIancourt Rocks)". Are you serious? Are you kidding? I think you are serious, so I have to say, please consult a psychiarist at once. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet? If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to prove to you, and no desire to prove anything. If you truly believe that Good Friend and myself are sockpuppets, then by all means, ask an administrator to investigate your suspicions. As for your vandalism of this page through the making of personal attacks, racial attacks, and racist comments, if it continues, you will be referred to the administrators, and you may be blocked from editing as a result. If you cannot maintain a civil tone on these talk pages, then feel free to keep your opinions to yourself. --Zonath 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already refered him once for attempt to counter-AfD the AfD for Takeshima Islands and have amended the notice for his rather abusive language in his latest post here. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about.

Takeshima is the way of calling Dokdo in their language.

They just made that up only so that they can claim Dokdo for their wanting for resource goods.

Dokdo is and was claimed by South Korea for over centuries,

and Japenese should realize that they should stop arguing and accept the fact that they are wrong.

Before they even start with Dokdo, they should apologize to the whole Asia coutries,

especially South Korea for what cruel acts they caused just for their wanting for power.

Dumb monkeys.

Korean Fascism? part3

Stop your comments. They are racist and POV. Even if some editors listen to you, you are just humiliating yourself. Please stop the racist comments because you will be liable for being blocked for several days. Please don't put yourself into a position where you can get banned. Good friend100 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overbearing! Typical Hwa-byung Korean pattern! --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do you know the meaning of "discussion"? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why can you say "They are racist and POV", shutting your eyes to your own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know here is the discussion page? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Good friend100's comments are racism and out of NPVO. Are you joking? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against Japanese. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet? If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure everything is clear, Japan's population is not 1200 million (or anywhere close to that). As of 2005, the estimated population of Japan is 128,085,000 (or about 128 million)^ref. The population of South Korea is 47,817,000 (or about 48 million)^ref. If you add in North Korea's population (about 23 million)^ref, the total population of the Korean Peninsula is about 71 million. However, this discussion has nothing to do with the respective populations of the countries involved. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality over quantity Shougi Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think you are not racist, think again. Using the term "Koreans" to describe the Korean side or the Dokdo side is racism. Good friend100 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoah... —Aiden 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep quiet, Shogiku Wine, if you would like to be a patriot / nationalist. Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (I mean here English-speaking readers/editors who are free from Korean POV). That cannot resolve the situation. --Isorhiza 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What would his comments be then? Resolving this situation would be to ignore him. And I'm not a nationalist. Shougoki Wine's comments just destroyed the relationship between the Dokdo and Takeshima side completely. Good friend100 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to write to ⇒Shougiku Wine, not to you. You should rather consider replying to the question about the maps which you showed. That island cannot be Dokto. --Isorhiza 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't write to Shougi. Why do you write, "Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (Japanese)" to Goodfriend who is not Japanese? Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess I can say that that island cannot be Takeshima also. Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore him. Admins will solve the problem. Good friend100 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If Takeshima was Takehima....

Then why would the Japanese government and people suddenly claim Dokdo a couple years ago? Its suspicious, and thats like South Korea claiming Tsushima suddenly. Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not "suddenly ... a couple (of) years ago". If we feel "suddenly", it just mean "we did not know". "(Note 2: In September 1954 Japan proposed to the Republic of Korea that the issue should be submitted to the International Court of Justice," according to The Issue of Takeshima (MOFA Japan, 2004). --Isorhiza 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning:If you would not discuss in this section,your action is vadalism.--Forestfarmer 06:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about.

Takeshima is the way of calling Dokdo in their language.

They just made that up only so that they can claim Dokdo for their wanting for resource goods.

Dokdo is and was claimed by South Korea for over centuries,

and Japenese should realize that they should stop arguing and accept the fact that they are wrong.

Before they even start with Dokdo, they should apologize to the whole Asia coutries,

especially South Korea for what cruel acts they caused just for their wanting for power.

Dumb monkeys.--written by 69.137.47.250, 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an obviously vandalism(childish, talk page, personal-attack vandalisms). Stop it. --Questionfromjapan 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty lame comments. Even if your comments are true, it is impolite to write them in Wikipedia. What a remeniscence of the vandalism before! Good friend100 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa okay... somebody needs to relax...

Whats wrong with shougi? Oyo321 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning:If you would not discuss in this section,your action is vadalism.--Forestfarmer 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Look here, Oyo321 is just expressing his concern. He is not making any inflamatory remarks. So please don't be too worked up and criticise him for vandalism. Mr Tan 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry.I apologize to him. I would relax but see "talk warning" section.The origin of an affair is him.do you think him ?--Forestfarmer 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

and about shougi is good.I thank english wiki source wikipedian.Its project is starting in japanese.I would put chess game record in english it When I leave from japanese it.--Forestfarmer 07:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "vandalism" on my comments is your problem too, Forestfarmer. You simply claim I am vandalizing the page. How am I? Am I writing down bad comments? You need to stop accusing people of things. Good friend100 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

talk warning

Because of some recent comments made by a particular editor with an attempt to inflame the discussion, I've put a warning at the top of the page. I would recommend leaving the warning until the sections are either deleted or archived. You may also want to include a {{controversial}} tag as well if you think the discussion is heated enough on its own. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I explain it? Administrator日本穣 protected this artcle.and he said:

"Okay, I've made the article consistent with the title. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)"

and he edited protected article.do you think about it? do you include it this article? and Do you want to be incoudeed this dispute?--Forestfarmer 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at? I'm just trying to keep a bad situation from becoming worse because of an editor who purposely used inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks in order to stir up more trouble on a contentious issue. His actions only caught my attention when he attempted to counter AfD an AfD discussion on the POV fork Takeshima Islands in order to disrupt the original AfD discussion. His actions ultimately got him band for a week, but that still doesn't mean that his inflammatory rhetoric is gone from this talkpage. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I ACCEPTED your insist.and you read all this talk page ? and Do you read thispage history ? and you think where is problem section ? I think you are TOO late to write it. The discussion of becoming hot is being settled. If I think you REALLY think to settle this problem.I recommend you to leave it.because It is being to settle.and If you insist in this talk page more,write the ID who advanced it that you may come to this talk page.Was he neutral enough?--Forestfarmer 05:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A solution

We run into this naming POV problem (and dispute) all the time in articles relating to Israel/Palestine. For example, calling the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Palestinian territories" carries a connotation that these territories belong to the Palestinian Arabs, a point-of-view which many may disagree with. Likewise, calling the West Bank "Judea and Samaria" carries a pro-Israeli connotation. Another example are the names themselves: Calling Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip "Eretz Yisrael" implies Israeli sovereignty, while calling them "Palestine" may convey an opposite opinion. The solution is to begin the article with something like this:

Palestinian territories is one of a number of designations for those portions of the British Mandate of Palestine captured and militarily occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and later by Israel in the Six-Day War...

or

Judea and Samaria (Hebrew: יהודה ושומרון, sometimes abbreviated יו"ש Yosh or ש"י Shai) is one of a number of terms used to describe the area more widely referred to as the West Bank.

This allows for discussing all the terms without taking any one side. In this article we could apply the same method with a result such as:

Dokdo is one of several terms used to describe the disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan (where they are known as Takeshima).

or you could include both such as:

Dokdo and Takeshima are two of several terms used to describe the disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) currently controlled and administered by South Korea, but claimed by Japan.

I hope this helps find a solution. —Aiden 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. But at least "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" is not an English name. How encyclopedias call these islets? Encarta search returns no result for "Dokdo" or "Takeshima", but for "Liancourt" it returns "Map of Liancourt Rocks". I cannot accept the current item name as neutral one. --Isorhiza 04:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Linacourt Rocks" is not a neutral name. And all our resources don't revolve around Britannica or Encarta. They use what they think won't flare up any heat from both sides, and that doesn't mean those words they use are NPOV.

"Linacourt Rocks" make it seem like Japan has a foot on Dokdo. It makes it seem like Japan is at an equal position like Korea, which is not. Good friend100 14:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at making it sound neutral; it is a bit sad that in this particular case there is a neutral term, but people (perhaps on both sides) are too militant about using it since they want their "pet name" to be used. I might suggest (again) that in whatever opening, the phrase "administered" is removed; it is administered by Japan in a similar way to the way Korea does.

Just a side not, I find this whole argument a bit silly, myself, especially when people argue where the land belonged thousands of years ago. Territory in that region has changed hands so many times that arguing about who was there first (which can go either way, depending on the arguer) seems a mammoth waste of time. I don't see why looking at international treaties doesn't fix most problems, but so is the world...

As for Good friend100's comments, it's clear that encyclopedias don't shy away from controversy, but use the most commonly used term--check out the "POV" terms the author above listed--they do indeed show up in encyclopedic entries often. LactoseTI 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, other encyclopedias are one of the recommended external references for identifying common names. As Isorhiza has noted, Encarta uses "Liancourt Rocks" (Map of Liancourt Rocks (disputed), Asia). The Columbia Encyclopedia also uses "Liancourt Rocks" (Liancourt Rocks). Some of other recommended references ("geographic name servers" and "international organisations") also use "Liancourt". According to the NGIA GNS server, "Liancourt Rocks" is the BGN Standard and both Japanese and Korean names are variants. The United Nations Cartographic Section lists "Liancourt Rock" as "Sovereignity Unsettled" in List of Territories (pdf). --Kusunose 15:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in using other encyclopedias as references to determine a primary usage, etc. please come over to the East Sea where this same kind of discussion is not leading to the correct result although the majority of reputable sources such as Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia all give only one definition for the East Sea. Thanks. Tortfeasor 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how that really relates here; those encyclopedias also give definitions of Sea of Japan. The difference here is that the encyclopedias do not give definitions of Takeshima or Dokdo. LactoseTI 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

LTI: Thats misunderstanding the point by conflating the issue of alternate names (which is irrelevant to the issue) with what the English meaning of "east sea" is as evidenced by reputable sources. Savvy? If you're going to use the majority of reputable sources to say what term is "more correct" for the islets here than that should be applied to the issue of east sea. Without sounding rude, hopefully, I wanted to clarify my point because I think it wasn't understood and I would prefer to talk about it on the east sea discussion page. Thanks for your response. Tortfeasor 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But just because encyclopedias don't give definitions of Dokdo or Takeshima doesn't mean that they are not widely used. Encyclopedias can show what term is used more often, but it isn't accurate. English encyclopedias may just use the "most common term" or the "most neutral name" they think won't flare up any side, in this case Korea or Japan. Good friend100 19:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias like Wikipedia... LactoseTI 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is special and different in the way that it is really easy to edit the information in it. Good friend100 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit misleading. Wikipedia has a multiple policies such as WP:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources which require that all contributions come from published works such as other encyclopedias. No one here is allowed to offer their own research. Thus, if you can find no reliable source to verify a claim, your contribution is nothing but your own point-of-view. In the case of the Liancourt Rocks, the fact that the term is used in nearly every respectable source on the subject should be enough to warrant its use in this article. However, since so many people here seem more concerned with advocating their own POV rather than using a perfectly neutral term and solving the issue, we can in the least try the above compromise. —Aiden 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• ""Linacourt Rocks" make it seem like Japan has a foot on Dokdo. It makes it seem like Japan is at an equal position like Korea, which is not." Well, that's one perspective, I suppose. However, the Japanese position is given a lot of credibility internationally. The main difference between Japan and South Korea on this issue is that SK actually occupies and controls the islets, while Japan does not. Other than that, no matter what the arguments for or against either side, we have to treat the claims more or less equally, seeing as there has never been any real resolution to the matter. In order to maintain some veneer of editorial neutrality, it might be necessary to go back to using the name 'Liancourt Rocks' for this article. However, now certainly does not seem to be the time for that particular move. We should be getting a handle on the content of the article first before we go and bicker about the name again. One step at a time, eh? --Zonath 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The introduction part is a nice next step. Jjok

i think one source of the frustration is the inconsistent application of principles. Senkaku Island is japanese language-derived, despite there being a "neutral" "english" name, Pinnacle Island, but the same people calling dokdo pov seem uninterested in moving senkaku. Oei Invasion is uncontroversial as a japanese-derived english name, but the english name Imjin War is pov because it is korean-derived. as tortfeasor pointed out, some of the same sources being cited for liancourt rocks also refers the entry "east sea" to the "sea of japan," but doing the same at the wikipedia page is fiercely opposed. these inconsistencies tend to undermine actually reasonable arguments. Appleby 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Senkaku Islands" is the term used in other other encyclopedias such as Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta. The United Nations Cartographic Section lists "Senkaku Island" as "JP Territory" in List of Territories (pdf). NGIA GNS server seems not reliable on this matter; if you search "Pinnale Islands", it gives "Sentō-shosho" (a name not used in the article) as the BGN Standard, searching "Senkaku" gives "Senkaku-shotō" as the BGN Standard and searching "Diaoyutai" gives "Diaoyutai Shuiku" or "Diaoyutai" as the BGN Standard. Naming of "Liancourt Rocks" and "Senkaku Islands" is the consistent application of Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references. --Kusunose 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As to Oei invaision and Imjin War(s), my understanding is that the problem of Imjin War(s) is not because it's a korean-derived term but it's not the most common terminology. If there's more common terminology for Oei invaision, we should rename it per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) too. --Kusunose 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

And as to East Sea, it is not a redirect but a disambiguation page because it's ambiguous (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Confusion and discussion in Talk:East Sea). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries, "Sea of Japan", the most common usage, comes first. "Sea of Japan" is not considered the primary topic because there's no "majority of links in existing articles" nor "consensus of the editors" per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. --Kusunose 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Zonath, Japan's claim would be given credibility, and a lot of it too. Lol. I think I've said this before, but Japan is more "recognized" than South Korea, obviously because of their power and influence in the economy and technology. So it seems that usually the larger, stronger country has a stronger claim over a smaller nation (which in this case, to me is not true). Like Goodfriend has said, Japan only claims it. Its no "dispute" as it is usually refered to. How can somebody claiming somebody else's territory just off the bat be considered a "dispute?" Oyo321 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To many, it seems that Korea is "only claiming" by sending over a few boatloads of "goons with peashooters" when no one was looking. The point is it goes both ways. It seems very similiar to a "lebensraum" expansion taking Sudetenland. LactoseTI 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we not debate whose position is more valid than the other or the injustices of other articles and focus on making this article NPOV, either by using a neutral term such as "Liancourt Rocks" or by implementing the above proposal. —Aiden 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look back at Archive 4. There was a vote between Dokdo and Liancourt Rocks, which was held in two different periods, (the Korean supporters made a clean sweep initially, followed which the Japanese-supporters complained and casted their votes, and I myself suggested to combine the two results together) which (still) ruled out that Dokdo will the name used for the article. As you can see, wikipedia works by consensus. The vote had only taken place the previous month or so, and it is a new one. Mr Tan 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look back at Archive 4. Yes, there was a vote, but I doubt the validity. Second poll that Mr Tan mentions lasted only 2 days. No appropriate control by reliable administrator and no qualification by editing experience. It is very reasonable to do the poll again under strict control by a neutral administrator and enough length of period for announce and poll. Those who have daily job like me needs at least a few weeks to join the poll. I sometimes need to go to places for weeks where web access is not available.

It is difficult to determin what name is neutral or not in such a case. Instead, we should strictly follow the rule of Wikipedia. The title of this article doesn't follow Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. If Dokdo is the really common English name, why other major encyclopedias mention nothing about it, while South Korea controlls the islets more than 40 years long peacefully? This single fact proves enough that the name Dokdo is just a most common Korean name, not English. --Isorhiza 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the second poll was short, but you're mistaken when you say it lasted only 2 days! Check the archive again. As for your second point, control and qualification by editing experience wouldn't have made any difference, since they could only have potentially removed votes, and the consensus was unanimous. But my main concern about having a new poll now is that it will become a contest in rallying support, instead of a reflection of actual consensus. --Reuben 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's not that simple because 'Liancourt Rocks' has much more stronger tie to Japan. They once officially named the islands as "リャンコ岩"or"リアンクール岩" before they named it as 'Takeshima'. Original english name was 'Hornet island'. Soon after Japan named the islands as 'Takeshima' Korea went down to Japanese occupation, and to the world, the islands were known as 'Liancourt Rocks' exclusively from Japanese source. This wide spread name 'Liancourt Rocks' just reflects this wrongly weighed naming of the islands before WWII when the entire Korea was known to the world as Japanese territory. Considering this history, I don't think it is appropriate to use Liancourt Rocks as the title. Ginnre 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously. Of course its a common Korean name, since it Korea that named it. And it can't be a common english name either. Nearly all people I ask don't know what I'm talking about if I mention "Liancourt Rocks." Same goes for Takeshima. Oyo321 18:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please! Probably because you are asking Koreans. Most people in the English speaking world don't know ANY of the names--but out of the group that know them most, if not all, have heard them termed Liancourt Rocks. If they haven't heard that term, they probably heard BOTH Takeshima and Dokdo since it was in some news article about the controversy that happened not to mention the Liancourt name (though most do). (I don't get how people can claim this doesn't exist, since it's how most people have heard about it?!) The only argument Koreans seem to have to keep their name is that they feel that they should have the right to name it. Unfortunately, that's not enough justification for Wikipedia.

Ginnre: Liancourt is not a Japanese name, it's a French name. "リャンコ" and "リアンクール" are written in katakana to show they are foreign words. Liancourt gained popularity over Hornet because Liancourt was already published and more widely used... they used Wikipedia-style consensus and dropped the old name. Engish language publications originating in the US, UK, Japan (and Korea, ironically) called it Liancourt, which explains why today it's the most widely used term, and the most neutral. Unfortunately, people here don't seem to be as reasonable as the "old world pros" in solving their disputes. :S LactoseTI 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre, my point here is not neutrality of the name, but the guidline of Wikipedia. I don't care whether it is Dokdo, Liancourt, or Hornet, if it is a common English name and follows the criteria of Wikipedia:Naming_conflict. Please always show good source for your concern about the neutrality of the name "Liancourt Rocks". I also didn't know at all that "Lianco" or "Liancourt" was official name of that island before the islets were named "Takeshima" by Japan. I'm familiar with comments and articles that the island was officially possessed by Japan for the first time as Takeshima after the war between China and Japan in 189?, so it is not valid Japanese territory. --Isorhiza 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see whether or not it's Japanese territory has anything to do with the naming issues... What's more, I don't see how not having possession before a certain point in time means it's not valid--land changes hands. Or are you suggesting the US belongs to the Native Americans only because they stepped on it first?

As far as naming goes, stick to the point--everyone uses Liancourt, and it coincidentally is a neutral name... What's the problem? LactoseTI 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lactose and Isorhiza, it looks like you're so ignorant of the history. The islands were in the possesion of faltering Korean Empire since 1900, before Shimane prefecture proclaimed it as terra nullius in 1905 [44]. At that itme, Japan even didn't have a Japanese name for the islands. So they used "リャンコ" on their official publications and that term was so widespread in Japan that even fishermen called the island "リャンコ". That was my point. My another point is, if Japan didn't occupied Korea so a long time and deprive Korea of speaking out her opinion on this island, there is no reason to use Liancourt Rocks by now. At that time, Ulleungdo was also called 'Dagelet' along with 'Liancourt Rocks' for Dokdo. For me, to insist on using Liancourt Rocks is like justifying Japanese expansitionism period because the present mess-up with the naming and Japanese claim originated from that period and is valid only with those arguments originated from that period. For comparison, have Germany ever tried to reclaim one of their old territories, most part of Pommern, after WWII? Ginnre 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but Germany did just that: “Die Ostpolitik der westdeutschen Verfassungsorgane (Bundesregierung, Bundestag und Bundesrat) war bis Mitte der 1960er Jahre auf eine Revision von Vertreibung und Abtrennung ausgerichtet.” (de:Deutsche Ostgebiete#Anerkennung der Abtrennung) 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this have nothing to do with the issue? Dokdo was not Japanese territory before 1905. (after 1905, the entire Korea was.) And it was in this Japanese imperialistic period to proclaim Dokdo as her territory. Can you justify that? Pommern was German territory for more than 800 years before WWII. And indeed they considered reclaiming, as you quote, until the middle of 1960. But not anymore. Japane is still persisting her right for Dokdo even though that happened in her imperialistic expansion period. That perverseness makes this messup with the naming. You still don't get what I'm saying? You may try hard to get back Minami Chisima, but there is no good reason to claim Dokdo and no reason to call the islands Liancourt Rocks as Ulleungdo is no more called Dagelet. Ginnre 14:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Its because "Liancourt Rocks" gives the impression that the islands are disputed between both Korea and Japan. Its not a dispute, just a one sided claim from Japan. Also just because you don't "claim" a territory doesn't mean that it isn't yours. That territory is already under your own control and you don't have to claim it again when someone else claims it. Good friend100 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking... since Japan used the (still) internationally recognized name before using their common name, the international name somehow was "stained Japanese"? If anything, I think it shows just how international the name was--they indicated it was a foreign name, and used the prevailing method of calling it.

In any case, it doesn't matter--what does matter is how people outside of the situation call this island. The most common way to call it over the past century, now, and probably over the next century is Liancourt Rocks. Even if Japan finally gets Korea to agree to arbitration and proves once and for all that it is "Takeshima" it should probably still stay under Liancourt Rocks... LactoseTI 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If Japan is the only side making a claim, then I guess the issue is moot--it is Japanese, then... :S I guess it's not what you meant...

Actually, it seems you someone got confused while receiving your looking at the Korean propaganda--Korea is trying to say that Japan isn't claiming the territory. If two countries claim the same piece of territory, the international court decides. Korea is desperate to stay out of UN court since it knows it would lose... as you said, just because you make a claim doesn't make it yours, and that is precisely what the Koreans did...

Back to the name... I'm not sure why you think that using the non-Japanese common name originating in the 1800's makes it seem Japanese...

It's really immaterial who owns it--who owns it doesn't affect the name at all in Wikipedia--if another term is more commonly used, it's picked--as I said, this is a particularly good choice in this case since it also is the only NPOV name. LactoseTI 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't even think about starting up again by calling others names and as if they are brainwashed by propoganda. Its both racist and insulting. Good friend100 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that better?; didn't mean to offend--anyway, pay more attention to the argument and less to your emotions... LactoseTI 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even going to reply your comments. This is ridiculous and the argument is not starting all over again. You post your "didn't mean to offend" words somewhere else. Good friend100 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, do you think that "the islets are claimed by both countries and disputed" is pov? As Zonath pointed above, it is the central issue here (I am not joking). I am interested in making a poll. --Jjok 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Jjok you have an interesting point. Any wording might want to take it into accout. Perhaps something like, "Japan claims the islands as its territory, but Korea suggests their own claim is undisputed." I know it sounds stupid, but it summarizes the issue (I think) fairly/neutrally. However, if we go that route, we should give the rationale for both parties as well. The sentence makes it sound like Korea has their eyes shut with their hands over their eyes or something... Korea isn't stupid or ignorant of the Japanese claim; if they acknowledge that Japan even claims the island, it will probably wind up in arbitration. I'm trying to think of a way to sum up that idea without sounding biased. LactoseTI 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't claim an island that is already yours. Its your territory and it doesn't require any "claiming" to do, and thats what the case is on Dokdo. Japan is shouting their claim on Dokdo while Korea simply says that it is their own territory by right.

And its pretty immature by deliberately crossing off the "recieving your" and being sarcastic with your wording towards me. If you think that makes me all "emotional" and "nationalistic" it doesn't. All it does is just make you look bad. Good friend100 03:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look up what "claim" means. The US claims Hawaii as part of its territory. In any case, the main point was if you recognize the fact that Japan is claiming it, it means there is a dispute. This is what Korea is trying very hard NOT to recognize. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, it's important for the wording of the article. People who know the Korean position would not be happy if it is worded in the way you are suggesting. LactoseTI 03:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you sing "dokdo-nun uri ddang," you are claiming. I think if they want to say that they are not claiming, they should just shut up as this person recommends.[45] Jjok

Just for the moment, let's assume that 'claim' isn't going to make it into this article, and start looking for an alternative, rather than getting hung-up on the term. What about 'asserts ownership' as in "Both South Korea and Japan assert ownership over the islets". Or "Both South Korea and Japan consider the islets as part of their respective territories." Or what about "Both South Korea and Japan include the islets with their respective soevreign territories." Any thoughts? --Zonath 08:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Both South Korea and Japan consider the islets as part of their respective territories." sounds most neutral. LactoseTI 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whichever, Zonath. Good luck!--Jjok 21:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats already an obvious statement. Good friend100 03:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jjok, I think something along the lines of "...disputed islets claimed by both South Korea and Japan" is perfectly neutral. It does not say or imply in any way whose claim is more legitimate. —Aiden 19:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Aiden--I agree with you, but unfortunately the Korean government insists that Japan is not making such a claim (since as I mentioned above it would likely land them in international arbitration). I presume Korean editors are taking issue with the word "claim" for this reason. LactoseTI 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, the problem is there are a lot of people who oppose such a simple fact-based npov description. It looks like cult of Holy Dokto. Whatever against their doctrine is evil and not tolerable (the education of "cultural superiority" and "righteousness of the nation" starts from kindergarten as latest in SK[46]). That makes difficult to edit the article based on facts and make it npov by describing the both positions. As you can see, most of the references in the article are corean sources. Do you think japan does not have any counterarguments for each?--Jjok 22:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the CIA fact book map of Japan , the disputed Kuriles say "administered" by Russia and "claimed" by Japan. I think that could be used here and would be neutral although I haven't been following this discussion too closely. Just a suggestion. Tortfeasor 20:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be, if the situation was the same. Hasn't Japan ceded administrative control to Russia while the dispute is resolved? That would be why the CIA would list it that way. Such action has not happened (and is unlikely to happen) in the case of the Liancourt Rocks. My impression is the "and administered" was simply a typo/oversight. The government of Japan active administers the islands (besides all the tracking of the territory, it also plans/executes scientific expeditions, etc.) Such tracking is not done in the case of the "Northern Territories". LactoseTI 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to follow the Factbook, "South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954" will be appropriate. I think people should do more aggressive counter-lobbying against japan to deal Tok-do as same as south Kurile islands. Or it is a nice opportunity to start thinking why US describes the locks in such a pro-japanese way despite they fought against evil imperial japan to liberate corea and thus should be pro-corea from the beginning.--Jjok 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the Factbook, this is Wikipedia. Ny point is, if we are really arguing over the use of claim or not, it does show how "claim" and "administered" is used. But obviously, we shouldn't use the Factbook if Jjok admits it is biased in a pro-Japanese way.

LactoseTI: A source would be nice for your claims because that CIA map is rife with typos, like the name for Liancourt Rocks :) At Kuril Islands dispute, it doesn't mention what you say at all and I'm not sure "tracking the territory" and intents in the future to make a "scientific expedition" would count as "administration" under international law precedent while establishing a lighthouse and having nationals of ones state would. Tortfeasor 23:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Look up the definition of administration. The actions you mention aren't material to administration--the Japanese point of view would simply be that they allowed the building of a lighthouse and are allowing guests of the Japanese empire to temporarily visit their territory. Administration (internationally) most definitely refers to the administering (in an office) of governmental actions--they both do this. Look it up. In the case of the Russia/Japan islands, Japan doesn't do this. This example alone is enough to avoid the word.

As for claim vs. administer--well, administer clearly implies they are claiming as well. The Korean government in general (and thus people with the Korean POV) are not happy with the article saying that Japan claims them (since it means they would almost certainly lose them in arbitration). I guess you are one of the few who are open minded enough to admit that the Japanese claim does indeed exist. If we can persuade the others to allow this to stand (I think it is kind of common sense) it's a really good start. LactoseTI 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion for looking up the definition of administration is enough. A source would be nice for your claims (especially since a general "look it up" seems rude especially since it is your claim) about the Kuriles so I could independently verify it myself. Thanks. Tortfeasor 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant to suggest for you to look up the definition of what exactly administration entails. Both sides do about the same amount in administering the Liancourt Rocks at the present time. In the other case, Russia grants visas to visit/work at the islands in dispute to foreigners (except for Japanese, for which they have a special agreement that no such visa is necessary). Both Korea and Japan have offices that could do this for Liancourt Rocks. Why are you pushing so hard for this word to be used? Clearly there are other choices that will get your point across without resorting to a word that is obviously questionable. LactoseTI 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor, I do not think the description in the Factbook is pro-japan but neutral to relatively pro-corea because they should be as a corean liberator. They describe as if they have forgotten how they drafted the San Francisco treaty. However, I have no problem to concede to usage of the Factbook wording that "occupied by SK" as a relatively npov description as a result of concession of the both sides.(^_^)--Jjok 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Then how come maps have Dokdo written in as "Administered by S. Korea"? And just because Korea is not facing the international court of justice doesn't mean they're wimping out because they know they will lose. Korea is just as alert because they know Japan has an advantage at the court, especially of the Japan members of the international court.

You keep saying as if Korea knows they will lose in arbitration and Korea is just running away from the "truth", which is not.

"One of the few who admits Japan's claim". I of course acknowledge Japan's claim, its just that is not significant or strong. If Japan's claim was powerful, Dokdo would be in Japan's hands by now. Good friend100 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I already asked that which countries are supporting SK position except NK, and I have not gotten any reply so far. I am pretty sure that if someone asks to US or whichever countries who signed the treaty that the islets were included the territory that japan renounced or not, then the answer is no (even SK gov. knew it[47]). I respect the corean position (most probably, it means that I won't just delete the pov at least even though the description is logically wrong) though the positions of the others also should be respected as well. I have no idea which Factbook map you are talking about.--Jjok 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did South Korea not agree that the international court was the place to settle such disputes? Now there is a case where they are likely to lose and they wish to change their allegiance? Anyway, this has nothing to do with the article in question--I wasn't intimating anything with the statements, I was explaining why the Korean side doesn't want the word "claim." If it's a valid claim, everyone agrees (including South Korea) that it goes to the court. And they know they will lose. It's what S. Korea says, at least, so it's not really an opinion--the opinion is as to why they would lose--but that's immaterial to the discussion. Would you please stop just being contrary? Stay on topic, which is finding good wording. I was trying to suggest we stay away from the word "claim" and why; don't just start trying to "pick more fights." At least you admit that the word "claim" for Japan's position is not too strong, which is better than most. LactoseTI 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer your first question. "ICJ or wherever, we do not have to go to because we know that Dokdo is our land."--Jjok 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're convincing yourself into thinking that the Korean position is terribly weak. That is not true. Everything is not decided on Japan's right of "international law" and the international court of justice. Korean claims are much stronger historically and that is a fact you cannot deny. Insisting only on information during the "modern times" misleads into that Dokdo is 100% japanese territory. Good friend100 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Good friend100--please think how your comment contributes to the issues at hand. This isn't the place for political activism. It's sad, but I've seen several editors who actually put on their page that the reason they sign up is to leave political comments on this page. Please set a good example. While I think you are wrong, and your arguments are transparent, even if you somehow had a point, you're just going in circles and not helping move things forward. LactoseTI 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to say, as of now, the issue of Dokdo is not anywhere close to being brought to international court.--KiteString 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

About the usage of "claim":

claim Cross references:

 1. demand                

1. claim \'kla-m\ \'kla--m*-b*l\ \-m*nt\ vt [ME claimen, fr. OF clamer, fr.

  L clamare to cry out, shout;]akin to L calare to call - more at LOW 1a: to 
  ask for esp. as a right  1b: to call for : REQUIRE  2: to assert in the 
  face of possible contradiction : MAINTAIN  - claim.able aj

2. claim n 1: a demand for something due or believed to be due {insurance

  ~}  2a: a right to something; specif : a title to a debt, privilege, or  
  other thing in the possession of another 2b: an assertion open to challenge 
  {a ~ of authenticity}  3: something that is claimed; esp : a tract of land 
  staked out

This is the Webster Dictionary's definition of "claim". Using the word "claim" to describe Japan's "demand for something believed to be due" is perfectly acceptable, as long as it isn't partnered with words like "rightfully" or "wrongly".--KiteString 03:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I agree with you. Although this definition of "claim" is not the one used in this situation (the international one is), I think this word is still appropriate (even by the "real" definition). In the past, several Korean authors were opposed to this (per the S. Korean government's position). Have their positions softened enough to allow this word to be used? It would be nice if progress is really happening here... LactoseTI 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as of now, Japan is not making an outright announcement but hinting that Dokdo is owned by Japan. This can be interpreted as a claim, but Koreans prefer to just call it hinting.--KiteString 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See [[48]]. This is the official prefectural (government) page. It seems stronger than a hint... LactoseTI 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a site with information about what Japan thinks of Dokdo. The claim that Koreans deny is the clearly announced claim of the government, not the claim of a site.--KiteString 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part at the bottom that says, "Shimane Prefectural Government" (a prefecture, part of the Japanese governmental system). LactoseTI 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems you think some of the Korean editors create a slow progress on this article, since you also mentioned how my comments run in circles. "Korean editors" (which by the way can be name calling on a specific group of people).

"Progress" as in what? The Dokdo article will continue to change because of current activities. The progress that would really be "progress" would be adding information to its ecology section and history section. The porgress you want is to use the phrase "Japan has a claim on Dokdo" as you want it. Good friend100 23:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking about the Korean POV is not name calling. I don't think "Korean" is a negative term, do you? Incidently, even if you do, and wish to point fingers, first think about the fact that you regularly use the phrase "Japanese editors" and in connection with the word "whining" (clearly that is name calling).

To address your question, "progress" in getting the article unlocked and moving forward. Discussing the ecology is really not that important--or are you somehow under the impression that ecology is the issue about which is causing this article to be locked? LactoseTI 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlocking the article will be very dangerous for a few years, so I doubt much "progress" will be made.--KiteString 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Most editors hopefully don't share your pessimism. It's truly sad if you happen to be correct--events are occurring rapidly regarding this issue. Try to have a positive outlook! LactoseTI 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the government did not announce the information on this site; it's not what are are refferring to as a claim.--KiteString 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language. If you click a couple of times, you can find the page that highlights, "In accordance with international law, Takeshima clearly belongs to Japan." (and other similar comments) This is on the official Japanese government site to which I linked. There are other such official sites as well. LactoseTI 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement about first language was uncalled for, but I will ignore it. Has the Japanese announced directly, that Dokdo is their land?--KiteString 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult--I was trying to suggest that while it is written plainly and directly on the government site (as illustrated), perhaps you missed it because of language ability. I have great respect for people who have learned languages of very different structure. I reiterate--how much more plain can you get than putting on the official government page "Takeshima clearly belongs to Japan." They did this. I gave the link. What exactly are you still missing? LactoseTI 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's like California deciding to go into the carbon futures market when the federal government hasn't signed Kyoto. Does the prefecture speak for Tokyo or are you arguing that it is implicit. Tortfeasor 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The analogy is a bit off--the prefecture created that website and passed the motions with full knowledge, consent, and perhaps even the prodding of the Japanese federal government. In this article, for example, [Takeshima Day], "Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi reiterated Japan's claim that the island is Japanese territory." He was in official attendance at the ceremonies done by that prefecture. Komdori 13:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has published The Issue of Takeshima and on it they say "Takeshima is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory" and "the occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation". They also say "the Japanese government has on repeated occasions expressed this stance to the Republic of Korea." --Kusunose 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"This is on the official Japanese government site to which I linked." Japan's claim on the island is from a Japanese site? So, it must be POV since you always accuse Korean claims to be POV because they are from Korean sources.

I have to repeat myself again. International law is not the only thing that applies to Dokdo. Its also the historical claim on Dokdo, which seems to be avoided all the time. Every claim is from the Japanese government and the Foreign Ministers of Japan. Korea has a stronger historical claim and that has to be considered.

And Japan's direct claim on the island is really for economical reasons, rather than the historical truth. Good friend100 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to read before posting. We are saying that the Japanese position is that they claim the islands. Of course it's the Japanese POV! That's the entire point!

What's more, we live in a world of laws--S. Korea agreed to be bound by international law, not be just a rogue state, so yes--international law is all that matters. Any "ancient history" will be weighed appropriately by the court, although you seem to realize that it's really meaningless in the long run (land changes hands many times--it doesn't just go back to the first person who happened to step on it). LactoseTI 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think Japan has chance to win when the issue goes to the court? I think the decision will not be a clear cut. Japan has this and that on the islands, but Korea has this and that, too, which cannot be dismissed easily. After all, the islands were not mentioned in the SF treaty and Korean empire proclaimed Dokdo as her territory in 1900 before Shimane pref. did so in 1905. By the way, officially, Korea does not take the issue to the court because the islands are her territory so there is no reason for the issue to be arbitrated by a court. It is not worrying about losing it. As I said, the decision will not be a simple, clear cut. It is Japan to try to bring the issue to the court, unilateral effort. Finally, as far as I know, the issue is to be solved between Japan and Korea, so who supports who's position is not so relevant on this issue. Anyway, as far as I know, China is for Korea, maybe because of Senkaku islands, and the US does not take position, so apparantly neutral. I don't know who's for Japan. Ginnre 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As of now, Korea is bound by international law to her advantage, as the core requirement of posseion according to international law is "actual administration". The actual administration of Dokdo is supported by "continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty". Korea is firm on both aspects mentioned.

And by the way, the issue is not anywhere near the point of being brought to "the court". --KiteString 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, guys

[49][50]

there have been confirmations of sockpuppets around Korea and Japan related articles. This isn't the first time. Sockpuppets just make things worse on the talk pages, especially if there is an argument or debate going on. Please don't use sockpuppets because you will eventually get caught and blocked for a long time. Good friend100 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Jjok

Ahahaha, that's cute! → Rōnin 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever drew this seems to maintain their opinion towards sockpuppets. Good friend100 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Does "sockpuppet" refer to the using of multiple accounts to overtake a discussion or poll? --KiteString 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry The short of it is people create multiple accounts to give the illusion that more participants have one point of view than in reality--the often lead to wars, as the sock poppets linked here were on opposing sides. (Does this subject really belong on this talk page at all? It slightly affected the discussions/votes here, but...) LactoseTI 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we sometimes need such an entertainment show, especially in such a "battle field" of revert wars.--Jjok 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. Thanks, and no, I dont think this discussion should be here unless sock puppets heavily affect the discussion. --KiteString 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There were several puppets floating around but I think they have been taken care of (i hope). Good friend100 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

this sockpuppet issue is ridiculous. Good friend100 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you remember something? If the shoe fits, wear it. Gegesongs 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you want to address. Good friend100 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I merely suppress the nationalism of the Korean people like you. Gegesongs 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should go the Japanese Wikipedia where there is no Korean nationalists.

You suppress the nationalism of the Korean people? Is that really possible, of degrading one down so much that they have a negative impression of their own country? Is this your purpose on Wikipedia? Good friend100 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many Korean nationalists who write falsified and exaggerated history about Korea on the Japanese Wikipedia. Your proposal is not a radical solution to the problem. My purpose is to write the HISTORIC FACT. Not like this man.

"I am getting the impression that the Japanese are total ingrates. Please prove me wrong by changing your attitude on Korean contributions to Japanese civilization. Baekje played a key role in Japan's development. If not for Baekje, Japan would likely remain a backwater in Asia for many more centuries and become probably something of a mix of Mongolian and Southeast Asian cultures. --Sir Edgar 00:41, 15 June 2006"

What is your feeling toward the comment above? Not sentimental reasons but the historic fact is important for me. Thank you. Gegesongs 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if what Sir Edgar wrote is impolite, pointing out specific people to present your case is pretty rude.

What Sir Edgar wrote was because of his frustration when information of Korea at the Japan article kept being deleted. And I mean all the information. Pretty rude to delete information on an article, not to mention the vandalism.

I am not going to point out anybody, but I have seen worse comments than Sir Edgar's that are nationalistic and nasty, not to mention what happened to this talk page several months ago. Good friend100 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know that it is rough stuff to write the specific person's name. I dare to write his name. It is most flagrant instance I have ever seen. If someone write this comment "What Gegesongs wrote was because of his frustration when information of Japan at the Korea article kept being deleted.", you will be up tight about that comment, huh? You defend his controversial remarks because he is the position closer to you. In the event, you have little appreciation for the person who have the views against you. Please, please don't press your own self-righteous values on others. I desire so deeply. Gegesongs 14:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think I am a sympathizer that defends editors on my "side"?

The "views against me" are views that believe that Koreans are "nationalistic and unpractical". Of course I wouldn't appreciate them because they are insults as you say what Sir Edgar is doing. Just because somebody is racist or rude doesn't mean you and the Takeshima "side" have done nothing wrong. I have seen Japanese editors or the editors favoring Takeshima have made worse insults and actions. And you don't have to get so aggresive about it when you think the others are all wrong.

You cannot forget the sockpuppets and the vandalism smeared in this talk page. Good friend100 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And nobody has yet proven my impression as wrong. Any Korea-related information in the Japan article is consistently deleted, with the sole exception of Japanese occupation of Korea in 1910. And the contribution of Baekje to Japanese civilization is twisted into some kind of "tribute" which is incorrect.

By the way, Gegesongs, here are just a few comments that you might find interesting:

"South Korea has made the island in beautiful Japan dirty. South Korea has made Takeshima's beautiful rock dirty. 60.41.158.27 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

"Dokdo true name is Takeshima is a Iland where Koreans stealing from Japan. 60.41.109.44 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)"

"To redirect from Liancourt Rocks to Dokto, Just only korean and their servant are pleased. WasedaTOLDER 5:37, 1 Jun 2006 (JST,UTC+9)"

And this is just from this article's Talk page.

Anyhow, if you even dare imply that I am trying to distort historic facts, then I will take measures to make sure that you are dealt with appropriately, according to Wikipedia rules. I have done nothing but put balance into the articles that I have edited.--Sir Edgar 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On top of what Sir Edgar and Good Friend said, Baekje really did play an extremely important role on ancient Japan. KiteString 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

More about economy

I think that the fact that airspace is also a valuable asset for the military should be included in the section about ecomony.--KiteString 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What economic benefit does South Korea gain by having airspace over the islets? After all, it's only something like 25 nautical miles from any edge of the islets, which is pretty easy to fly around, no matter what kind of aircraft you're in. It might have some (very limited) strategic importance, but the economic advantage of controlling the airspace is virtually nil. --Zonath 08:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But the article says that Korea can track naval activities of Japan and Russia. Good friend100 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's a strategic advantage, not an economic one. I think that the economy section is pretty well complete as it is -- there is little or no economic activity on the islets themselves, although the waters around them contain fish and (poossibly) natural gas. Certainly, strategic advantages might eventually translate into economic ones, even when they're so miniscule, but if that's what's happening here, it should be easy to find some mention of it somewhere else. --Zonath 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the space that is gained was much more than a few miles. But shouldn't a small space be mentioned anyway?--KiteString 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. All islands generate territorial waters and airspace, but the existance of such isn't really that notable, unless there's something else that's actually signifigant about it. At any rate, the small spot of territorial airspace doesn't provide any tabgible economic benefit to South Korea or the inhabitants of the islets themselves whatsoever, making mention of it an ill fit in a section that focuses on the economy of the islets. Perhaps someone can show some strategic importance to South Korea having a 25nm-radius dot of territorial airspace in the middle of the Sea of Japan, but given that nobody has put forth any use of the airspace for economic activity, it really doesn't fit in the economy section. --Zonath 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. --KiteString 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is no economic benefit, then how come most of the articles I read say that Japan is seeking Dokdo for "economical reasons"? I think that the waters around Dokdo is very economical. Both S. Korea and Japan rely a lot to the sea for food and fishing is an important industry. Good friend100 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no economic benefit to having the islets, I'm just saying that the 25nm zone of airspace around the islets doesn't confer any special economic benefits upon South Korea. Yes, people fish in the waters around the islets. Yes, posession of the islets does give South Korea a small extension of its EEZ in the Sea of Japan. Yes, there are possibly some sort of natural gas deposits around the islets. These are all economic activities/benefits, and are stated as such in the article. However, the airspace around the islets isn't being exploited for any economic purpose, as far as I know, and so it isn't particularly notable . --Zonath 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, wouldn't Japan and Korea gain much airspace because the sea border of the countries is extended from existing shorelines over the obtained islets? For example, Japan would gain airspace by the strip of sea territory between the Oki islands and Dokdo. --KiteString 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't get a strip of connecting air space. Several countries have islands halfway around the globe from one another--they don't get a little strip of personal air space all the way around. Even if they did, it wouldn't give much economic benefit. If I misunderstand what you're asking, please clarify. LactoseTI 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Although the disposition of Dokdo could potentially have a fairly large effect upon the distribution of EEZs for the region (although it doesn't now, since South Korea doesn't count it when measuring its EEZ), territorial airspace only overlies territorial waters, which more or less extend 25nm out from shore, and doesn't stretch between islands and mainland. --Zonath 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I guessed on that one; I should do a little more research before I say things like that. I was about to say I wasn't basing it on any factual info. KiteString 02:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really nothing to be sorry for. I don't think anyone here is innocent of making an assumption every now and then. --Zonath^Yak 09:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlocking

Whoa, I just noticed the article was unlocked and I can see that there were changes already; Isn't this a bit dangerous?71.234.20.64 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Administer

I think there is a distinguishment between actual administration and the "administration" that Japan is claiming to do. Any country can set up a visa house or whatever to claim they are administering the island but in reality only South Korea actively prevents ships and planes from going to the islets from Korea, etc. It doesn't seem like there is much consensus for the word in conjunction with Japan with two editors deleting it now from the main article. I think a more accurate word should be used so there isn't any confusion about what the reality on the ground is. (Also, I would still be interested in reading about the Russian agreement with Japan about the Kuriles if you have a source LactoseTI, thanks.) Tortfeasor 07:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Preventing planes/ships is not administration, but is control. It's not just a visa house, they maintain (thousands of) public records, such as family registrations, etc. There is only so much any country can do to administer such a place (an island with no fresh water, etc.), and Japan and Korea are doing about the same here. Read about the Russo-Japanese agreement here: [[51]] LactoseTI 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like quite a stretch to me to say that Japan administers the Liancourt Rocks. Putting "also administered by Japan" gives the (incorrect) impression that Japan effectively administers them, i.e. takes care of the living quarters and helicopter pad, or that permission granted by Japan to visit the island actually allows one to do so. Whatever argument you may make for using "administers" here, it will be misleading to readers. --Reuben 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(I have no problem with the version just reestablished by Komdori, where "administers" is left out altogether. Maybe that will be acceptable all around.) --Reuben 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that--"administers" doesn't seem to be terribly necessary. LactoseTI 16:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to mention the administration that Japan does somewhere in the body of the article. --Reuben 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of administration of Dokdo (Takeshima) does Japan do? Can you list the duties? As far as I know, Japan cannot even approach the islets. Anyhow "administer" probably comes from duplicating the statement shown in the Senkaku Islands article as follows: "The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島, Senkaku Shotō) are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently administered by Japan, but also claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan)." Why do people object to the term being used here? Please state your reasons.--Sir Edgar 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre--it might be nice to finish the discussion before rolling back to something with which others clearly disagree. Senkaku is a bit different--most notably because Korea, China, etc. do not claim they are administering that land--they simply want it back. Liancourt Rocks is different... Japan maintaings a plethora of public records/family registries, etc. The question is--since it's controversial, why are you so gung-ho on putting it in? Do you really feel that the extra phrase adds that much to the article when it seems POV based (Japan claims they are the ones administering it, so it's based on what you POV is). LactoseTI 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying you're not gung-ho? I was also surprise by your pushing for Hideyoshi's in Imjin War article. I still don't know what kind of consensus we had, and Seven year was and hideyoshi's were misleadingly combined to be looked superior to Imjin war, but somebody anyway just went ahead and changed the title so quickly. During the entire effort, it was mainly you who arbitraily interpreted ohter people's opinion and very stubbornly pushed to what you wanted to have as the title. Considering your push in that article, I don't know how you could be entitled to say that kind of thing to me. Back to the issue, for me it is just clear to use administer for Korea and it was in line with Senkaku islands. Again, what Japan is doing is just unilateral. If Korea starts to register Korean in Tsushima islands, is Korea claiming and also administering the islands? I don't know why that kind of unilateral work should be equally treated in the opening paragraph with what Korea is doing on the islands. How about changing 'administered' to 'controlled' in Senkaku_islands, too?

By the way, I didn't intend to be involved in an edit war. I won't change the sentence until discussion here gets some consensus. And as I alreay have a welcome message in my talk page, I'll delete yours. Ginnre 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping a level head--this article is clearly "touchy" and anything can clearly land it being protected (with the "wrong version" again :D). Several (myself included) seem to believe this word is inappropriate for this article. If you feel it is also inappropriate for another, why not discuss the issue there?

The point is that Japan considers Korea's action to be unilateral. It depends on your point of view--hence, it being a POV edit. LactoseTI 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends how you make the edit. All edits are a point of view. A neutral point of view is still a point of view, its just that this "we cannot take any sides" policy is being enforced. Ironically, each talk page is cut in half into two sides like this article.

NPOV means nothing. It simply is used to discourage taking sides and looking at things from your own perspective. Your own perspective?? Ok, so then you'd would have to look a perspective from the entire community! Is that possible. Every edit is a POV to the editor.

The biggest reason why I don't like the NPOV policy is because it distracts the editors away from the article itself.

One person makes an edit and we all hear POV POV POV accusing that editor. Then we get into an argument about whether its POV or NPOV and then we argue about how we should write the sentence and all the time goes by.

Hello?? I'm pretty sure everyone wants to help make the article better. As in adding in the economy and wildlife section. Maybe some pictures, hmm? Good friend100 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing from Ulleungdo

I disagree with the removal of the sentence noting that Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo in fair weather. The edit summary called this "not notable." It's true that seeing one island from another doesn't convery ownership or sovereignty, but that doesn't make the fact non-notable. The article should not be a simple inventory of arguments for Korean or Japanese ownership. There's an observation site on a cliff on the coast of Ulleungdo specifically for viewing Dokdo, so this is at least notable as an element of Dokdo-related tourism. As an argument for Korean ownership, my recollection is that this is mainly intended to counter the claim sometimes made by the Japanese side that Dokdo wasn't known to Koreans until modernity. --Reuben 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo is easily verifiable (a simple mathematical equation shows this is at least possible) as well as signifigant to at least one or two arguments on either side. --Zonath^Yak 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the argument that Koreans didn't know about it until recently; most arguments I've heard usually were based on the fact that "ancient history" doesn't matter. (And I was thinking that although I can see a bucketload of Canadian isles from the US, it doesn't matter a whit.) If you feel it's important, by all means put that one back. I didn't intend to "slight" anyone--instead I was trying to nibble down the length a bit, since the article is on the long side. LactoseTI 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I squeezed it back in without really making the length significant. If it's not there already, someone should add at least a note on the Ulleungdo page, too. LactoseTI 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are photos that show Ulleongdo from Dokdo. And what is wrong with a long article? The more information the better as long as its just not a bunch of repeats. Good friend100 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Background" section from Japanese Wikipedia

The "Background" section that was added by Forestfarmer appears to have been taken directly from the Japanese article and translated into English without being checked by a native speaker. It would probably be feasible to edit the section to improve readability, but do we really want to have an entire section taken more or less directly from a Japanese source here without even listing where it's from? I'm worried that it would be a breach of neutrality as well as the GFDL. I would suggest doing either a major rewrite or removing the section until it can be rewritten. Rōnin 13:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is translated from Japanese by me.Is GFDL OK in this? Or, should I write in the article ?--Forestfarmer 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the GFDL, actually. I think it's very hard to understand and follow it completely. I think I've broken it several times myself. Rōnin 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only probelm with this edit. Besides the obvious translation problems, it is written as a simple bulleted list of dates and incidents; this seems to be common in Japanese Wikipedia, but an English article needs text in sentences and paragraphs. It generally duplicates material that's already found elsewhere in the article. It mostly uses the name Takeshima alone, even replacing Dokdo in other sections - certainly not acceptable. And it does seem rather slanted towards the Japanese side. So I don't see a lot to be salvaged. --Reuben 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a direct translation from Japanese into English, then yes, it's a violation of the original copyright-holder's intellectual property rights to place it here without permission. Although it seems to be more or less a direct translation of the list in the Japanese Wiki article on the islets, so that would probably be fine, as long as the list was compiled there rather than taken from some other source with no permission.

As for the content itself... It doesn't exactly seem to add anything particularly new or useful to the article, appearing to simply repeat information found elsewhere in the article. If we really want to make a timeline like this (for accessibility, I suppose), it really should be in its own article, with a link here. Otherwise, we're just adding redundant sections to an already too-long article. --Zonath^Yak 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Janviermichelle 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A timeline would work, but I think it might be a bit of a waste (to have it at all, I mean). However, before removing it, I strongly suggest someone work out any details that aren't in the main article so they aren't lost. LactoseTI^T 13:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I rather think the history section could benefit from some summarizing. There's no need to list every single incident that one side or the other brings up as an argument. --Reuben 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If they aren't listed here, it seems that right now they won't have a place anywhere. If it's too much for this article, perhaps we should split it out in the way of the Sea of Japan Naming Dispute article, which might help drain some of the extra material from here. Komdori 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Reuben, Zonath and LactoseTI. I can't really see the necessity of the section, and perhaps there should be more sources than a direct translation from the Japanese wiki. As for creating a seperate article for a timeline — it's a valid idea, but again, I can't see the necessity of it when we have a History section (although I do see that a timeline would be easier to read than textual paragraphs). Also, if we do create a seperate article, it would be labeled with the tag 'Neutrality of the article disputed,' and that'd create even more editing conflicts throughout the course I'm sure. —Mirlen 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to find a place for every single argument put forward by Korea or Japan? I would be happy with a summary in the article, and links to Japanese and Korean gov't web sites for additional information. --Reuben 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not every single one, but most of the ones listed are fairly major. I'm not against getting rid of some--but how do we choose which? Hmm... it might even be unnecessary to think about--is there indeed anything there that isn't in the main article? I agree with Mirlen that splitting it out would almost certainly just make it a target (and wouldn't make this article any less of one).LactoseTI^T 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is already too long and major events were described in History section. Why would a background be necessary in addition? And it begins with 1613 event, which covers just some part of the history as can be seen in History section. The section should be deleted. If needed, History section could be expanded. Ginnre 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for deleting this section. I propose to wait a day or so in order to allow any useful details to be moved elsewhere, and then remove it. --Reuben 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus to delete it, why do they edit that section? It looks like some of editors want to keep the section. If so, they need to explain why the section should be there. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Ginnre 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems there may be some itmes there that aren't anywhere else. Rather than just cut it out, perhaps we could start by removing the redundant sections. —LactoseTI^T 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the history section can be expanded. Why do you need a background section? Ginnre 20:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; my point is that someone should identify what is unique there before just wiping it out--and we can integrate the new material into the history section. —LactoseTI^T 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, although I really would feel a bit more comfortable finding references for most of the added information. Maybe someone with a bit more working knowledge of Japanese could go over to Japanese Wikipedia and find the source (or sources) used for this section? --Zonath^Yak 09:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong in the article. I'm pasting it in below. If anybody wants to try to salvage parts of it, feel free. --Reuben 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

The dispute over Liancourt Rocks - the Japanese government recognizes having started it by having declared the target that the islands were under South Korean rule on January 18, 1952 by the fishing boat keep off line (the so-called Lee Sung-man line) based on sea sovereignty declaration of the South Korean President Lee Sung-man.

On the other hand, the South Korean government recognize having started it by having decided on the cabinet meeting that the Japanese government includes the islands in its own country on January 28, 1905.

• 1618

Otani Kankichi(大谷甚吉) and Murakawa Ichibe(村川市兵衛), citizens of Hoki Province(伯耆国; Hōki-no kuni) Yonago city(米子市; yonago-shi) get permission from the government, and makes a voyage to Liancourt Rocks (it was called Matsushima in Japanese at that time).

• 1692

The party of Otani and Murakawa who sailed out to fish to Ulreung-do encounters Koreans. They encounters next year. Two persons, Ahn Yong-bok (安龍福:안용복) and Pak O-dun(朴於屯:박어둔) are taken to Yonago city, and a dispute occurs between Japan and Korea.

• 1696

The Japanese government forbids the voyage to Ulleungdo. The Korean fisher Yong-bok (安龍福) goes to Hoki Province(伯耆国) to argue that Ulreung-do and Usan-do are Korean territory.

• 1849

The whaler Liancourt of France discovers Takeshima and names it Liancourt Rocks.

• 1877

Instructions of Cabinet that The island outside Takeshima in the Sea of Japan is made outside of Japan transmit to the Department of the Interior.

• October 25,1900

The Great Imperial Korea edict No. 41 made Ulleung-do country of Gangwon-do and also made Seok-do a Korean territory simultaneously.

• Februray 6,1904

Russo-Japanese War starts.

• August 23,1904

Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty of 1904 was concluded.

• September 29,1904

the Shimane Prefecture residents, Nakai Yousaburo(中井 養三郎) submits "Liancourt Rocks rent and territory-include" to the Ministry of Interiors, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of the Agriculture and the commerce.

• January 28,1905

The island is named Takeshima at the Japanese government cabinet meeting, and considers as jurisdiction of the Shimane Okinoshima branch office.

• May 27 - 281905

Battle of Tsushima is performed among Japan and Russia.

• November 17,1905

Eulsa Treaty was concluded. The Great Imperial Korea becomes a protectorate of Japan as a matter of fact.

• August 22, 1910

The Great Imperial Korea is annexed by Japan based on Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty.

• 1914

The management of Ulleung-do is transferred to Gyeongsangbuk-do(慶尚北道) from Gangwon-do(江原道).

• August 17, 1940

The management of Takeshima is transferred to the Department of the Navy (Maizuru admiralty port) from Shimane Prefecture as a navy lot.

• September 2,1945

The Japanese government accepts Potsdam Declaration.

• November 1,1945

By the Department of the Navy abolition, the management of Takeshima is transferred to the Ministry of Finance.

• January 29, 1946

Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan. SCAPIN#677(Supreme Command for Allied Powers Instruction Note　No.677)

• June 22, 1946:Area Authorized for Japanese Fishing and Whaling. SCAPIN#1033(MacArthur line)
• August 13, 1948

Republic of Korea was founded. Syngman Rhee was sworn-in as first president of South Korea.

• August 10, 1951

U.S.Government official stance that "the MacArthur line isn't effective continuously", it had been shown by the Rusk documents.

• January 18, 1952

South Korea Government declares the Syngman Rhee line.

• April 28, 1952

Treaty of Peace with Japan became effective.

• January 12, 1953

South Korea Government ordered to seize a Japanese fisher-boat that go into the Syngman Rhee Line, deeply.

• February 4,1953

Dai Ichi Daihoumaru Ship case.Near Cheju Island, the chief fisherman of the same ship receives shooting in the South Korea side, and dies.The South Korean army is stationed at Dokd for the first time.

• April 20, 1953

Dokdo loyalty-and-courage garrison is stationed at Takeshima for the first time.

• June 27,1953

The Japan Maritime Safety Agency and Shimane Prefecture investigate Takeshima, and build the territory sign of "Japanese Goka-mura, Oki-gun, Shimane-ken.(日本島根県隠岐郡五箇村)" Six South Korean fishermen who had settled in Takeshima are made to leave after a wreck.

• July 12,1953

The Dokdo garrison of South Korea which had landed at Dokdo opens fire on the Maritime Safety Agency patrol vessel in Japan. Henceforth, South Korea advances Dokdo's militarization and does not accept approach of a Japanese naval fleet. Although the Japanese government is protesting against the motion which militarizes Takeshima by this South Korea, the South Korea side is turned down as "interference in domestic affairs."

• August 15,1954

James Van Fleet which fought the Korean War commands a mission as a President special mission ambassador, makes a round of calls on each country in the Far East, and creates Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East. he reports privately the thing of having transmitted the intention of the United States that the dispute overLiancourt Rocks to be solved through International Court of Justice is desired to South Korea to the President. Refer to details Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East.

• September 25,1954

The Japanese government proposes the Takesima problem to International Court of Justice to the South Korea side. The South Korean government does not respond to this.

• [November 30,1954

The South Korea side adds bombardment to the Japanese patrol boat approaching Takeshima.

• April1956

8 Ulreung(鬱陵) police station policemen reside in an island permanently.

• December 25,1956

Dokdo loyalty-and-courage garrison is dismissed

• 1965

Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea signature.Japan-Korea Fishery Agreement was concluded.the Lee Sung-man line abolition. The dispute over Takeshima islands is made into a dispute processing matter. However, after that,South Korea has not arrived at the table of negotiation.

Systematic analysis about some editors in 2ch.net. Just amazing.

It looks like there is systematic analysis about editors in this article going on in this 2ch website. They try to gather people who are able to write in English to counter attack what's been done by allegedly Korean editors they detect here. Just amazing... Ginnre 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty amazing. Especially inasmuch as they think than anyone who disagrees with their POV must be Korean (I'm not, just in case anyone was wondering.) I feel sort of... special for being singled out like this. Guess I must be doing something right. --Zonath^Yak 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

http://society3.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1153715761/

Umm accusing the "Korean editors" of what? Disagreeing with you or trying to keep an inappropiate title of "Dokdo"? Good friend100 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Koreans must leave Dokdo. It is 100% Japanese. The 1905 annexation is legal. Japan respects the laws. Korea must go to the International Court of Justice for fair trial. Why doesn't Korea go to the ICJ? Is it afraid of facing the laws? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.233.205.83 (talk • contribs), a Hanaro Telecom IP (Seoul, Korea).

Just a reminder to 222.233.205.83: try to keep your edits constructive. This talk page is already filled with way too much political debate. —LactoseTI^T 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page is for improving the article, not for arguing. KiteString 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the Japanese text is deleted, but it is on public domain. The whole text in that thread was entirely devoted to analyse edits of Korea related WP articles, especially Imjin War, Dokdo, Yayoi, etc. In the beginning somebody put an objective of the thread (We need to take steps against Korean manipulation of eglish WP) and introduced what is english WP and basic english words regarding Japan/Korea and then the rest is active Q&A and discussion of the contents. You can have a feeling in my talk page as I put more parts of the text from the thread. It was 12th series of the campagne and each series has 1000 replies and it's ongoing.

Is it relevant to this discussion page? Well, those threads in 2ch.net may explain why there were so many Sockpuppets in this article who have the same reasoning from ultra JPOV and aggresiveness, and it is repeated. Ginnre 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless they had their Wikipedia names there and were conspiring to break policies, I don't see the relevance. There are many possible reasons for the many sock puppets on both sides that have shown up here. Komdori 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

I suggest that if contributers to this page are unable to discuss from emotion then they don't discuss at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a playground where people resort to name-calling and frankly racist comments - especially noticeable in the "Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country" section.

As has been pointed out before, no political discussions here outside of their direct relevance to the issue at hand.

Dealing with the name issue:

How do we name places?

a. it's an English version of the name of the place in the language of the owner's of the territory.

Sevilla ---> Seville

The owner's (Spain) call it Sevilla. This is in English 'Seville'. This name is accepted by the Spanish and therefore it is the 'correct' name.

b. The English sounds totally difference but is accepted by the owners once again

Deutchland ---> Germany

c. The territory/land/place has no owner, and is named by common consent

The Pacific

The Sea of Japan

The English Channel

(The Sea of Japan is not 'owned' in totality by any one country, and although the name perhaps hurts Korean sensibilities, not being the owners of that particular territory they have no right to force a change.)

d. The name is not accepted/changed by the owners

This will generally lead to change as newspapers tend to use the new acceptable name

Ceylon ---> Sri Lanka [or something similar]

[the exception here is if the country is in control of a dictatorship which may be going against the wishes of the citizens]

All three of the above have no relevance to this article because the Dokdo/Takeshima is a disputed territory. Furthermore, it doesn't have a common name. The vast majority of English speakers have never heard of them, so in this case the 'common' name has not been established. Searches on Google are irrelevant. Google is not a statistical reliable sample. Also a vote is not the way to deal with it.

The only way to deal with it is what reliable news English language news sources do, and this is effectively to use all three names. So either we choose the neutral one

Liancourt Rocks or use both

Dokdo/Takeshima

People are welcome to put forward logical and unemotional arguments to this suggestion. Don't bother with irrelevant political arguments or racism (Koreans are... / Japanese are...) in this section. I'll delete them. ( read that carefully user: Shougiku Wine ) Macgruder 07:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even so, and I think this was rather central to the debate, many areas for which we may use one particular name are disputed, for instance Palestine, Somaliland, and even some of the other islands surrounding Japan... At some point, it becomes impossible to be "neutral" with regards to who governs what. I personally felt it permissible to use the name "Dokdo" because it seems like the Republic of Korea is currently governing the area, not because they necessarily have a "right" (which only exists in our heads to begin with) to it. Rōnin 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true (and thank-you Ronin for putting your argument logically :-), but there is one difference I see from the examples you have put forth. Palestine is under dispute, but it is without doubt the accepted name amongst the vast majority of English speakers. That was my point - a territory under dispute (whether we like the result or not) will be given the name that is accepted by English speakers. In the case of these islands, there is no accepted name amongst speakers of English - mainly because nobody knows or cares about the issue. (This is unlike the Spratly Islands). In this case, we need to check what the islands are called by non-subjective respected sources when they are referred to in English, and as far as I can gather news sources such as BBC etc. use all three. Ditto for Britannica which even goes as far as saying that Liancourt Rocks is the neutral term: ('The first was an argument over the ownership of an island group that South Korea called Tokdo and that Japan referred to as Takeshima ; some maps used a neutral term—the Liancourt Rocks').

Try searching for 'Dokdo site:bbc.co.uk', and every single page has Takeshima too.

My honest opinion is at this stage after all the input from both Koreans and Japanese (and others of course), it is time for people to recuse themselves from editing this page unless they can honestly say they have an objective opinion on the subject.

Most large or well known brodcasting sites or newspapers will definitely have to include "Takeshima". There will be many complaints from Japan and it probably would hurt their business. Good friend100 01:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your 'point' is irrelevant. Macgruder 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote many times in this section, Liancourt Rocks is not an established common name for the islands, at best an obsolete name as Dagelet was for Ulleungdo and Quelpart for Jejudo. The reason why the term was frequently suggested as the title for this article is, yes it is apparently neutral. But it is obsolete and not established. Recent articles about the island usually don't mention the term and rather use Dokdo/Takeshima. For example, see [52]. They don't use Liancourt Rocks because, as you mentioned, people don't know where it is. So the term has to be explained again and that is redundency in the article. Dokdo/Takeshima is enough for them. Not having a common english name, Dokdo was chosen over Takeshima per Senkaku islands over Diaoyutai. Ginnre 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a different article and it's up to them to decide by their criteria. The Wikipedia criteria is basically commonness in English, and it's difficult to really judge at the moment. Strict application of the Wikipedia rules would suggest that Dokdo/Takeshima would be the best solution. (Liancourt is not common so it is out).

If I do the Google count we get about 120,000 for Dokdo

If I do the Google count of Takeshima + Japan + Korea, I get 70,000

Clearly, this is inconclusive (there must be other times Takeshima is mentioned which means that the commonness cannot be resolved).

Here are the Wikipedia naming 'rules':

"Identification of common names using external references:

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term. International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc. Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).

Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English."

1. The Google test is a draw.

2. We should check outlets like news. The most common in these is Dokdo/Takeshima.

Therefore, going by the rules that Wikipedia itself establishes we should go for Dokdo/Takeshima Macgruder 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You said this; That's a different article and it's up to them to decide by their criteria. How can that argument so simply dismissed? What will be different here? If you want to use your title, they should do that, too. It's the same WP. Besides, is there any article with that kind of title with more than one name slashed with each other?

Takeshima has many other meanings as you see in the beginning of the article. So your saying that goole test is draw is not convincing. Ginnre 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"What will be different here?" Because they are two totally different places for a start. Each article independently needs to decide on the name depending on the merits of the article's situation, and going by the rules that Wikipedia itself established. It's not up to editors of Dokdo to cross check with a totally different place's discussion. The Senkaku Islands article is so named because the editors agree that is clearly the most common name amongst English speakers. The editors of this article do not agree that Dokdo is the most common name amongst English speakers so it is a different case.

You obviously didn't check my Google results, did you? Takeshima may have many other meanings but my test is Takeshima plus Korea plus Japan which severely reduces it. Here's another test:

takeshima korea japan on Google. 70,000

Dokdo korea japan on Google. 70,000

It's doesn't matter what these results are exactly, but what is certain is that Dokdo is not clearly the most common name used by English speakers. There is no evidence that Dokdo is clearly used more than Takeshima.

The Onus is not on me to show that the result is a draw. The onus is on the pro-Dokdo namers to show that Dokdo is the most common name used by English speakers. There is no evidence that it is

To do so, you have to show that Dokdo/Takeshima is most common plus you must exclude results where the speaker has written 'known as Dokdo in Korea', (vice-versa for Takeshima). Was written by Korean/Japanese speakers with the specific reason of promoting the name (this is probably most uses). What are we left with? News sources basically. And in those clearly neither is most common, and even Liancourt Rocks comes close.

So far nobody on this discussion (this section) has actually given a reason for the article to be called Dokdo.

All I see is one:

Korea is currently governing the area (this is irrelevant by the rules of Wikipedia)

Another article has some reason that is not elucidated here (so too is irrelevant - put down the reasons here so I can read them if you wish)

Dokdo is more common amongst English speakers (inconclusive, so too this is not relevant ).

Ginnre argued against Liancourt Rocks because it is not neutral, but biased towards Japan. Well, Dokdo is certainly not neutral, and there is no convincing argument per Wikipedia Naming Conventions to call this article Dokdo.

And one important point. Before people think I'm biased to the Japanese side, you can check the article Rusk documents where I have removed a Japanese POV. This would seem to be unusual on this site (For example Ginnre how many times have you edited this article to remove what you perceive as Korean POV?)

Before we continue this discussion I would like to here the actual 'official' reason to call this article Dokdo.

I don't understand why you're so confident about your google search. Let me show you how google search can be different and what you need to consider more to be convincing.

As you said, google

Dokdo Korea Japan [53] 140,000

As you can see in the beginning of the article, Tok-do, Tok-ddo, Tok-islet, etc are also widely used. So

Tok Korea Japan [54] 299,000

As you know, Takeshima has more than one meaning (it is even one of Japanese surnames), so

Takeshima korea japan islands [55] 74,200

From the last result, you may need to subtract 5 different places with 'Takeshima' in other prefectures, which amounts ~ 2000 entries.

So, it's 440,000 vs about 72,000.

This 'analysis' is completely absurd. You can't add 'Tok Korea Japan' to 'Dokdo Korea Japan'. You'll count many pages twice. You can't say for certain that all articles about Takeshima include the word 'islands'. As you know Tok has many meanings and possibilities too. Further, you can't add up all variants of spellings - for native English speakers Dokdo and Tok and Tokdo are different words, so you choose one of them - you can't add them up.

First learn how to use Google (go to the advanced and use the OR section) . This is the search you are looking for:

korea japan islands tok-do OR tok-ddo OR tok-island OR dokdo OR dok-do 104,000

VS

Takeshima korea japan islands about 70,000

This is an indecisive result

The truth is, Japan has been more or less silent, internationally, until recently ( 5-6 years ago?) about the islands. Majority of Japanese didn't know about the issue and didn't care. Other than government's activity in Japan, there could not be much usage of the term Takeshima in regard of this issue. On the other hand, there has been always something going on and talked about Dokdo in Korea because most Korean recognize the islands as Korean territory and they refer the islands as Dokdo or Tok-do when they write in english. As you said, westerners don't know or care about the islands. As such, there is no reason for them to create their own name for the islands. They encounter the name only when Korean or Japanese mention the islands in english or there are news about the Japanese claim (not from Korean side. They never claim as the islands are Korean territory). The fact that you hear more of Takeshima these days shows no more than that Japanese government, especially under Koizumi, is claiming the islands in a systematical and intense way. On the other hand, 'Dokdo' or 'Tok-do' has been around long before those recent Japanese activities. That gives the result above.

Then what should be the most common name? The usage of Takeshima cannot be compared to that of Dokdo or its variant. 'Dokdo/Takeshima' is already JPOV considering those facts. Ginnre 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"most Korean recognize the islands as Korean territory" Clearly, Ginnre you are unable to have any NPOV opinion about this matter. I suggest you show some honour and recuse yourself from further debate on this matter. Furthermore, your facts are not facts are they? Misuse of Google does not make a fact.

The rules of Wikipedia naming conventions very clearly state that whether Koreans use or have talked about the issue is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Koreans, Japanese write or think about the naming issue. It's what speakers of English do. Also there are the following Wikipedia rules:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

Macgruder 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple minor points: First, I wish people would stop misusing the word "claim." Koreans claim that Seoul is Korean territory. They are right. By the same token, Korea claims Dokdo--whether the claim is valid is a matter of debate. Or would you have us add, "Japan is the only nation in the world which claims this land," to the opening? I hope this is not what you're suggesting.

Japan has made very straightforward objections to the Korean claim over the years, not just in the past 5-6. Lastly, you can't say that just because you don't like the Japanese position that we can't consider it a name, especially if it's equally or more common than the Korean one. I guess the naming of these islands will probably always be contentious, but I think this proposal is a good attempt at making most people happy and in keeping with the naming policy. I doubt that in the English speaking world (outside of Japan and Korea) you will encounter one term without the other right beside it. Komdori 12:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about Japanese claims. Although Japan has sporadically claimed Dokdo on and off after the Korean War, it hasn't flared up until recently; probably because of the oil they want.

First of all, Korea doesn't see Dokdo as a claim. They see Dokdo as their own territory and simply see Japan having a one sided claim on Dokdo. Good friend100 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Korea doesn't see Dokdo as a claim. They see Dokdo as their own territory". Eh? That's what a claim is.

"probably because of the oil they want". Stop making basically racist comments. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and is not welcome on Wikipedia. Next time, I'll report it. Macgruder 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media.

Just noticed that this page is cited in an article in The Korea Times. It's a rather poorly written article IMHO, but might be relevant to the discussion. Speaker Eric 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The facts it has down in the article are most likely true and it is probably true that "Dokdo" comes up more often then "Takeshima" on search engines. It should be informed that we shouldn't start getting all nit-picky over google searches.

And now...all the Takeshima editors are going to complain about the POVness of this article, the "irrevelency of this article" and how it "doesn't help to this discussion". Good friend100 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, when I read it myself I checked and the authors obviously didn't go to the last page--since I had their totals before doing so (it seems they need to learn how to google search). It's also revealing to note that nearly all of the Dokdo references come from South Korea references, but few of the Takeshima ones come from Japanese sources (when searching by location)... Komdori 16:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

takeshima korea japan on Google. 70,000

Dokdo korea japan on Google. 70,000

Basically, the same. Both names are used equally. I strongly suspect that more of the Dokdo uses are be Koreans themselves compared with Takeshima by Japanese, which would mean amongst English speakers Takeshima is more common (This last is of course supposition). Macgruder 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I was talking about the news site--which is in tune with your intuition. Virtually all of the Dokdo references are from South Korean sources. Komdori 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, how many English speakers write about Dodko/Takeshima WITHOUT it being a discussion regarding the ownership dispute. This means searches will invariably turn up pages with both names in them. The only fair way to write the name is Dodko/Takeshima as per Wikipedia rules. (Dodko first to reflect that at the moment the islands are effectively governed by the Korean side)

The obvious problem, too, with the article is that it is not comparing English language searches on Google suggesting they don't know how to use it. Macgruder 04:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

By Wikipedia convention then, then we should also rename Senkaku islands article Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands.. Deiaemeth 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's something to be discussed on that article - what they decide is irrelevant to this article. We stick to the Wikipedia rules, and so should they. Anyway, Senkaku Islands is clearly more commonly used by English speakers than Diaoyutai Islands so Senkaku is the correct name it seems. But if you'd like to discuss the renaming of the Senkaku Islands to Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands then I suggest that you go to their talk page and discuss it. Macgruder 13:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Understanding Wikipedia naming policy

Reading through this article it is clear that people don't understand Wikipedia naming policy and its relationship with NPOV. Just to make this clear. A place name is not connected with which country has the 'better claim' or whether in a dispute like this who controls the island, or whether the name might not seem NPOV to either party. The only thing that counts is how English speakers refer to the name. This is why the Sea of Japan is the correct name for the Wikipedia article. It is NPOV for Wikipedia to call that sea the Sea of Japan, because that is what English speakers do call that body of water. That's all that matters. This seems to be the case with Senkaku Islands (English speakers seem to use that name much more commonly). Quoting Wikipedia itself:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

So the only thing that should be discussed is which name is used the most by English speakers. If it's a case of English speakers essentially never using it then we need to see what English sources such as news, geography references use. (A polite suggestion: learn how to use Google before posting stats here). Macgruder 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well not all articles in Wikipedia are named by "how English speakers refer to it." A lot of articles are not American-based articles and are not named in and English word. Same goes for Dokdo. You might know that not many people know about the conflict between Korea and Japan, and escpecially around Dokdo.

Dokdo is the right namw for the Rocks. There is no other eligible name, save Japanese "Takeshima" if anyone believes that Dokdo is truly Japanese territory... Oyo321 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what Macgruder wrote just above this comment? Wikipedia policy is that they should be named with the name English speakers use, regardless of if they are "American-based" or not. What's more, subjective criteria (such as you suggest) should not be used. —LactoseTI^T 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe you are so strong, the article would have been moved a long time ago. Good friend100 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation calls for much discussion to determine the best name--The article is changing slowly. If their only exposure is recent news, I agree that it is very unlikely for English speakers to know one term without the other. I'm sure we can come up with a better title and wording which will match such intuitions. I suppose we might be better off being "more bold" and trying some names right away, but I feel such actions should be tempered, considering the sheer amount of emotional zeal some editors (on both sides) seem to have. If we're careful, I think as a whole we can manage to find the best solution. —LactoseTI^T 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

LactoseTI & Komdori, you are both ridiculous and contradictory. I seriously doubt Komdori's true identity - I actually think s/he was mobilized by Japanese Wikipedians from one of the forums. And LactoseTI, what you argue are contradictory to your statements back in Seven Year War article. (Wikimachine 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Oyo321 and Good friend100. Are you saying that you know more than Wikipedia policy. Oyo321 clearly didn't read what the Wikipedia policy is:

Oyo321: "Dokdo is the right namw(sic) for the Rocks"

Wikipedia Policy: "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should NOT be used to determine usage"

If you are not prepared to abide by Wikipedia policy, you are in the wrong place.

Macgruder 12:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What about a title such as "Dokdo/Takeshima", and in the opening paragraph "Dokdo or Takeshima"? Is there an opening for that in Wikipedia naming policy? Would it even be possible, considering the slash? Rōnin 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10