Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Liancourt Rocks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

New evidence?

Japanese source, Korean site. Check it out: http://english.kbs.co.kr/society/news/1400373_11773.html HistoryManiac 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article. Its going to get interesting. Good friend100 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not new. This article only shows that there is some Japanese who support Korean POV. That is Freedom of speech. I have read about alternative understanding of the name of islands many times [1] [2]. --Isorhiza 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

notice of poll

there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features around dokdo, currently underway at Talk:Tsushima Basin. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be able to vote. Appleby 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the notice. Good friend100 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

how do you know how many edi ts you have had? Oyo321 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 210.253.91.34 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)」 210.253.91.34 13:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)」

I think there's a link called "User contributions" or something like that in the toolbox when you go to your talk page. Rōnin 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

please note the poll is still open for more input, until june 19. Appleby 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

References

Whew, even as a Korean, I can see that there are waaaay too many Korean sources, against around 1-3 Japanese ones. Is that one of the reasons for the POV notice? --Anarkial 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

one of many reasons, i think we'll just have to accept the tag as a permanent feature. korean sources are probably more numerous because korea actually claims a longer history and administered the islands for the last half century, what with the tourism, fishing, nominal residents, cellular towers, etc., just generates more relevant info, as with other disputed territories actually administered by one party. the standard is relevance and reliability, not a 50/50 quota. Appleby 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that not all the references referenced in the article actually appear in the References section. There are 84 references linked altogether, of which ten appear in the References section, five appear in the Notes section, and the remainder are inline external links. If someone converted the inline external links to proper footnotes, then we could judge the referencing issue much better. Henry ^Flower 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia follows a neutral policy doesn't mean we have to put the same number of Korean and Japanese articles. Simply enough, like Appleby said, Korea has a stronger claim on Dokdo and there are more articles that support the Korean side.

I don't understand why people think "just because its a reference from a Korean site, its Korean POV" Korean references are obviously stating that Dokdo is Korean but the statements they produce are generally true and not made up. Good friend100 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that, but maybe other people do, and would like to see other sources in there. I don't doubt Korean news sources either, it's just that people might not bother to check if they were true or not, and looking at the number of Korean sources, might be biased towards discreditability. Now that I see the reasons though, I agree with you. --Anarkial 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Korean sources gives an impression to all users that Korea's "claims" to the island are stronger than japanese claims. Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why everybody is nit picky about references. References are references and of course they are going to be POV but they are usually facts and not made up! Don't try to erase all the Korean sources because you think it is fair for the Japanese side, we have to admit that there are more Korean sources and claims. Good friend100 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Arguments

I've been keeping silent on the recent edits on this topic since I reverted the article, but the situation has gone out of hand. Now, every piece of evidence I have added has been literally shredded apart and tagged with statements like "but Japanese scholars dispute this based on..." regardless of whether the cited credentials are solid or not. It seems as if every Japanese Wikipedian is determined to deny every proof Koreans come out with for the sake of their nationalistic viewpoint. A few examples (again):

Inserted "Korea argues that Dokdo was called Usan-do and was a part of Usan-guk, based on later Joseon dynasty records. Japan argues that Dokdo was not a part of Usan-guk, disputing the interpretation of the later records."-I have never seen a Japanese argument that includes refutation of the Joseon Dynasty's records. I'm sure that this has been at the very least elaborately fabricated again by Japanese nationalist editors of Wikipedia. This statement will have to go.
Moved "Man'gi yoram ("Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the earlier Yeojiji ("Gazette") that Ulleungdo and Dokdo all belonged to Usan-guk. [42]"-This belongs to the Three Kingdoms section becuase it is directly related to the Samguk Sagi reference to Usan-guk. Moving it to the Joseon/Edo section disasscoiates it from the Usan-guk dispute, and thus makes it less relevant to the topic.
"They argue that Usan-do refers to Juk-do, which they say was the Korean government's interpretation in Ahn's dispute (see below)."-The Korean government never took the position that Juk-do was Usan-do, and there is no information below to refer to as promised by the note in parantheses.
Inserted "On the Korean cartographs Tonguk Chido (by Chong Sang-gi, 1678~1752) , Heajwa Chondo (1822), and Tongguk chondo (by Kim Tae-gon, 1821~1846), Usando is displayed. From the Korean point of view, this islet is Dokdo, but japan construe as Jukdo(chukdo) from the distance, shape, size, and direction.[45]"-Not only are the rules of English grammar mutilated here, the only source the person who added to the part behind the comma is a map. There are no sources or links that use the map to create a cohesive argument against why Usan-do is Dokdo. If you want to add in an argument against the Usando=Dokdo claim, cite a source that presents the argument itself, not some meaningless map. Other maps added on this article are used to portray the maps that are mentioned, and do not constitute arguments alone. Besides, "shape, size, and direction" are very arbitrary terms; Dokdo is in the east of Ulleungdo on the three maps noted above (as it is very much today), its size correspponds relatively to the Dokdo of today when compared with Ulleungdo, and its shape is a circle, as every other island in ancient cartographs. Thus, that cleverly sneaked statement is meaningless; it should also be garbaged.
Changed "Dokdo" to "Ulleungdo" in the statement "Arriving in Japan, Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that Ulleung-do was a Korean possession.[50][51]"-The news article links say that Dokdo was the area prohibited to Japanese fisherman, clearly indicating Japanese POV vandalism.

Once again, I urge that somebody put this article up for protection until all the vandalism of information be stemmed. I also warn future Japanese Wikipedians that, if not anybody else, I myself will personally not tolerate efforts to ruthlessly distort correct information that is rightfully due to the users of Wikipedia.--Jh.daniell 02:04, 8 June 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

Why don't you tell Opp about your defense of Korean records. Good friend100 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/potsdam.html

"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. "

It is clear the territories of Japan are limited. "We" are the Allied powers NOT Japan. Even with the transfer of administrative rights of the islands specified in the San Fransico Treaty, the soverignty of the terrorities are specifically stated not within the US athority to give away. Japanese claims to these islands are weak and political which is exactly why the wiki POV neutraliy terms would seem bias against japanese views. And so what. If the Japanese goverenment respond properly, this article would not be refuted. The fact that the japanese "democratic" society still blantly whitewash historical facts and event, is precisely why its important for wiki to state the article. How neutral can you be when the Japanese themselves are in a state of denial.

Hd8888 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember that it is not the job of wikipedia to discuss who is "right". It is to simply put the views of each side forward in this area. John Smith's 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not discussing virtues. I am merely expressing support in the "talk" page on how limited the japanese arguement really is.

Hd8888 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

artificially extraction and POV

(It continues because the conclusion is not reached.)

I think that information should not be artificially extracted.

1.Samguk Sagi: Another name of Usan-state was Ulleung-island.

2.Taejong-sillok in 1412: There lived 60 people in Yusan-state-island.

3.Taejong-sillok in 1417: There lived 86 people in Usan-island.

4.Tonguk yoji sungnam: The trees and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day. There is a theory that Usan-island and Ulleung-island are the same island.

5.A record of Korean patrols of Ulleung-island after the Ahn Yong-bok incident. There are no records of Usan-island patrols.(excluding the following 6.)

6.A record of Ulleung-island survey in 1807: Usan-island was to the north of Ulleung-island and had a lot of bamboos.

7.A record of Ulleung-island and Usan-island survey in 1882: The survey team could not find Dokdo/Takeshima.

8.A record of Ulleung-island survey in 1889: Dokdo/Takeshima was not surveyed and not found.

These important informations are artificially extracted from the perspective of South Korea.----Opp 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend100, I think inconvenient records for Japan almost has been described. Please tell me the example.--Opp 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No my question is why are you not stating invalid Japanese records while stating only the Korean records?

Also you seem to be confused with Usan island. Usan is not an island. Also, Usan is Usan-guk and it is an island kingdom that included Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Good friend100 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just adding on Goodfriend100s statement, Usanguk's claim was made possible because of Isabu, a general and politician of Usanguk, when he became powerful enough to "claim" Dokdo, or Gajido as it was called.

Permission to go to Dokdo-continued

I reopened up this discussion I started because it just got archived.

Anyways, why did Japan grant rights to go fish at Dokdo? If they considered Dokdo as Korean land, why did they grant the rights to go fish there? Good friend100 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo has always been rumored to contain resources of all kinds, escpecially rich fishing grounds. Because Japan and Korea are both countries dependant on fishing (japan a little more), Japan's fishing ground perimeters will be GREATLY extended, if Dokdo was under their control. Japan very badly needed the fishing grounds, and it was likely that Japan broke the agreement Oyo321 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my previous discussion from archive 5. You seem to not understand the discussion.

Japan is suddenly claiming Dokdo wildly because they believe gas reserves may be near Dokdo. Japan is a very industrilized nation and consumes a lot of fuel. But, I am not talkin about that. Im wondering why Japan had to grant rights to their citizens if Dokdo is their land. If Dokdo was really Japanese land, Japanese citizens would need no grant just to go to Dokdo. Good friend100 03:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the archive for an explanation of the reason why a Japanese citizen would need permission to fish around Dokdo. I suppose the question could also be asked... if Japan did not claim Dokdo, why would it have granted permission to fish there? Heck, if you're Korean, and want to be quickly arrested today, take a boat and land on Dokdo. Bets are you won't even be able to reach the island before the coast guard cutters reach you and order you to turn back. Does this mean that Korea does not claim Dokdo today? --Zonath 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? (Wikimachine 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

To Zonath...yes you are right but I am talking about during the 16th century. If Japan considered Dokdo as their territory during the 16th century, why did Japanese citizens have to get "special permission" to go fish there? This must mean Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory and secretly allowed Japanese citizens to go fish there. Good friend100 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point slightly. In a feudal society, such as 17th century Japan, just about nobody is free to do anything without the leave of their lord. Thus, permission was needed. In addition, the paragraph you cited states that "feudal tenure" was given to the fishermen over Ulleungdo and Dokdo, which means that the Shogun must have considered the islands either a) Japanese territory or (more likely, since they were uninhabited) b) up for grabs. Feudal tenure means that the Shogun gave those lands to the fishermen (it's a bit more complex than that, but basically, that's what it is). Like I said before... try to go to Dokdo without special permission. I will be very surprised if you don't get arrested before you can even reach the islets. Does this mean Korea doesn't consider Dokdo to be their territory? Of course not. At any rate, it may seem odd by today's standards that you would need permission to go anywhere inside your own country, but it would really be a mistake to interpret facts from 17th Century Japan in the same way. Japan in the 17th Century was a place where freedom of movement was very severely restricted and the average Japanese peasant was not allowed to travel freely except on pilgrimages. Sure, it seems odd by today's standards, but that's feudalism for you. --Zonath 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To Zonath above- Zonath, you can access Dokdo from Ulleung-do. There is currently a ferry ride available for those who want it for touring. Obviously you would be "arrested" or denied right to travel to Dokdo without permission. Again, its just that you cannot travel to Dokdo individually, but only from the ferry ride that leaves from Ulleungdo. Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the ferry only circled the islets rather than actually landing on them. --Zonath 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

True, the ferry trip allows only a view of the island. From your above statement, the Japanese did not claim Dokdo but allowed fishermen to fish there. Fishing is done from the boats, not directly on the island. So, the fact that there is even a ferry route that offers only viewing, the island is Korean land. There is no national, direct link to Dokdo. There is also a heli pad, which served purposes for the couple living on Dokdo. Oyo321 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll go back to my post above, you'll see that I did say that the Japanese claimed Dokdo, since the grant of a feudal tenure to the islets implies a claim of ownership. Of course, this assumes that the facts presented are accurate, and has little to no bearing on the present ownership of the islets. --Zonath 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The tenure did not respect the Korean government at the time. Oyo321 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Writing

I have read books in my local library, that shows ancient Korean writing etched onto rocks in Dokdo. This gives evidence that Dokdo has been inhabited during Usanguk period. Oyo321 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could locate the source and post it here, I'm sure it would be helpful to the discussion. --Zonath 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

References

I've converted all of teh references and reference links to the new <reference> format, and now they need cleaning up a bit as there are multiple references to the same article which are listed multiple times in the References section. If someone could do that, I'd appreciate it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are historical records undesirable for South Korea being deleted?

1.Samguk Sagi: Another name of Usan-state was Ulleung-island.[3]

2.Taejong-sillok in 1412: There lived 60 people in Yusan-state-island.[4]

3.Taejong-sillok in 1417: There lived 86 people in Usan-island. [5]

4.Tonguk yoji sungnam: The trees and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day. There is a theory that Usan-island and Ulleung-island are the same island.[6]

5.A record of Korean patrols of Ulleung-island after the Ahn Yong-bok incident. There are no records of Usan-island patrols.

6.A record of Ulleung-island survey in 1807: Usan-island was to the north of Ulleung-island and had a lot of bamboos.[7]

7.A record of Ulleung-island and Usan-island survey in 1882: The survey team could not find Dokdo/Takeshima.

8.A record of Ulleung-island survey in 1889: Dokdo/Takeshima was not surveyed and not found.[8]

Information should not be artificially extracted from the perspective of South Korea.--Opp 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

can you provide english sources please? per wikipedia policy WP:V, "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." i think this is especially true with controversial minutiae of very old records, as they are subject not just to straight translation, but analysis of historical context. thanks. Appleby 17:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The outline is presented in English. The original records are written in Chinese classics, and it is necessary to exclude an arbitrary translation. I am presenting the original records. Cannot you object to the content?--Opp 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Opp, are you saying that all these records that support Korea's side are not good supporting facts? Why are you saying the Korean records are not good while leaving the Japanese records alone? Are you Japan POV? The statement Information should not be artificially extracted from the perspective of Japan must be true as well. Good friend100 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am presenting the original records. It can be said that the original records are Japan POV if I am Japan POV. Verifying the recognition of ancient Korea by records of Korea at that time is natural. The records of Japan is recognition of Japan, and no recognition of Korea. Do you understand the historical science? I did not delete inconvenient historical documents for Japan either. The problem lies in artificially extraction of original redords like this.

“The Ton'guk yoji sungnam defining Korea's territory, stated that "Usando (Dokdo) and Ulleungdo are under the jurisdiction of Uljin-hyeon of Gangwon-do as an administrative unit."

Ton'guk yoji sungnam mentions that "Two islands of Usando and Ulleungdo are in the Sea of Japan. The tree and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day. And there is another theory that Usando and Ulleungdo are the same island". "(Dokdo)" is never described in this record. When Usando is assumed to be dokdo, the adjustment cannot be taken in description that ”The tree and the beach could be clearly seen on a fine day. And there is another theory that Usando and Ulleungdo are the same island”. Therefore, only "Two islands of Usando and Ulleungdo are in the Sea of Japan" is extracted, and interpreted based on Korea POV. --Opp 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Taejong-sillok is the first record that describes Usando, and it is very important. Because the survey of Usando is executed, and the specific report about Usando exists. Taejong-sillok is recorded, "86 people lived in Usando, and a government official brought back cotton, bamboo and strange tree to the Chosun government from Usando". This is not a record of Dokdo, but Ulleungdo. Is this original record Japan POV? --Opp 04:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are agreeable, but your first statement and paragraph at the beginning of this discussion is way too misleading. It sounds as if Korean records are wrong and not valid while saying nothing about the Japanese records. The tone of your discussions sound like Japanese POV. If the policy of Wikipedia is to be neutral why don't you state any Japanese records that might be "artificially extracted from the perspective of Japan". I still find your arguments too Japanese POV. Good friend100 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY MUST BE MAINTAINED, BUT HISTORICAL TRUTH IS MORE VITAL TO WIKIPEDIA

I hear this everyday. Dokdo and Takeshima are bull. They're foreign. Lets name the rocks Liancourt since that is most neutral. I do agree that articles in debate must be kept neutral, to satisfy users new and old. But wikipedia is a historical information site. Everything that gets edited must be sure to be historically true, or Wikipedia will be blamed for giving wrong information to users, as was a couple months ago. Dokdo is the most common and most historically correct name of the rocks. Liancourt is uncommon, and Takeshima was named by Japan in order to try and take the island.

The reason why Takeshima is becoming a more common name is national supremacy and recognition over South Korea. I hope everybody agrees, that, in history, stronger, more powerful and distinguished nations get the "right" to name a surrounding landmark or body of water. It always has been that way.

Because Japan is more known around the world, most people think that Japan must be able to name Sea of Japan. Japan must name Dokdo, if not own it. Take a look at the Gulf of Mexico. If before the Gulf was named, and Mexico named it the Gulf of Mexico, and Cuba stepped in and said "we want to name the gulf," would anybody listen to them? No one would give a squat, the way nobody would probably give a squat to South Korea. Oyo321 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion in 1st paragraph contains a Korea POV. It is histrical truth only in Korea. History of other countries about this islands should not be ignoured. Reito-maguro 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This new discussion is Japan POV. "nobody would probably give a squat to South Korea" I find this remark insulting. Good friend100 02:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You should not also ignore other POV. It does not keep NPOV policy. I do not ignore Korea POV. Reito-maguro 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The point seems to be that the Korean presentation of historical sources tend to use only parts that are favorable to their claim and conveniently omit parts that are inconsistent with their claim, consequently making their biased interpretation of them possible. --222.3.73.246 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, omitting historical sections unfavorable to that nation's reputation sounds more like Japan, not Korea... Ken ta987 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not justifies omittings.Reito-maguro 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reito-This may be a Korean POV, but I believe Korean historical record are most accurate describing or claiming Dokdo. Who else's historical evidence other than the country who owns the island's would better record it? Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The article without any intended omitting is best. We should describe original sources and we should not interpret or select original sources. Is it common belief in edit of an encyclopeida? Why do you edit with the way you prefer? If you want to add interpretation to the source by a Korea POV, you should not exclude the interpretation by a Japan POV mentioned by Opp in order to keep the NPOV policy.

It can be also said that your suggetion does not justifies breaking of the NPOV policy. NPOV policy should be kept. Reito-maguro 18:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute...who moved my "...neutrality must be..." paragraph? It was in the archive 5 before... Oyo321 02:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Any Japanse POVs I read are rarely views that haven't been mentioned here. Because they come from right-wingers, it is difficult for me to post it. Oyo321 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you know that neutrality is more important than truth in Wikipedia? Read WP:V Verifiability, not truth section. --Isorhiza 08:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reito, actually, I am forced to say that I cannot trust the historical views of Japan. History is blurred, distorted in favor of Japan, and I cannot trust any historical output of Japan. The historical changes in modern day textbooks fo not help either.

Isorhiza, well, if neutrality is more important in Wikipedia, then what is Wikipedia? This is a site that provides historical truth, not neutrality. I've used Wikipedia hundreds of times for information for school assignments. I'm sure that you wouldn't like false information on a trusted site like this, just becuase a band of Koreans and Japanese squabbled over the "neutrality" of a site.

saintjust's edits

these are some of the problems i see:

deleting (east sea) as secondary name for sea of japan, despite consensus and settled convention
foreign language references are disfavored per wikipedia policy (WP:V), but i'll leave this some in for now. what we really need are english language references that interpret the source material in context, and analyze its significance.
joseon dynasty records are there to define a term new in the article. this is needed there for logical flow of information. it is clearly marked as joseon dynasty records.
that scap 677 was not ultimate determination is mentioned twice in succession.
the rusk documents are summarized and linked, which is sufficient for this article. if you fully quote (which is not done for even korean or japanese official position documents) from every u.s. official related to this issue, you'd need a separate wiki project. the rusk document is not binding & generally not mentioned or emphasized by third party accounts of this dispute, because there are countless others with similar relevance & weight.
the times & britannica, if you want, can go in the external links section. they have not significantly affected the history of the dispute.
some of your wording simply do not make sense enough for me to correct. please discuss in talk before editing.

this time, i have not simply reverted, kept some of your edits. that's about all i have time for right now, but please feel free to explain your edits before reverting again. Appleby 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"East sea" is already mentioned in the first appearance of the Sea of Japan on this article and that's enough.
The sentence "Records from the Joseon Dynasty (1392~1910) such as...." is moved from the Three Kingdoms period section to the Joseon and Edo Period section where it belongs correctly.
The rusk document is an important and relevant piece of information and should be mentioned in more detail. --Saintjust 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

um, yes, i restored it after you deleted it.
that's fine
how is it more important than, say, the cia document favoring korea's position, or the 1900 korean incorporation or the 1905 japanese incorporation, none of which are quoted at such length in this already too-long article? Appleby 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been thinking. (Wikimachine 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

same here Good friend100 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that there are Korean citezens living on Dokdo permanently, make Dokdo Korean

Because the couple living on the island are of Korean nationality, and the Korean government extends its laws only to people of Korean nationality on Korean land, making Dokdo Korean. Oyo321 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, because Dokdo is Korean, the government has refused to defend it with military personnel. It is protected by ordinary policemen. Why, can't Dokdo be left alone? Dokdo is already well established as Korean land. It owns a dock, heli pad, and houses are built there. Oyo321 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you write your personal POV which conflicts with NPOV poricy? Can you accept same behavior by Japanese? Reito-maguro 18:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, Wikipedia must be kept NPOV, but I think that historical truth is much more important than neutrality. And this isn't my personal POV. It is true that Dokdo is protected by Korean police. And the Japanese Wiki do not make many "personal POV" statements. All I have seen them do so far is vandalize this talkpage and nothing more. Oyo321 18:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that the belief of the truth is a Korea POV? Additionally I did not justify their behavior. I said that your behavior is almost same with Japanese one you mentioned. Reito-maguro 19:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Turning back to the actual question posed (before all the personal attacks came down), the answer is 'no'. The fact that there are Korean citizens living on Dokdo permanently does not necissarily make Dokdo Korean (which is why the argument over Dokdo's status exists in the first place.) While the occupancy of Dokdo by a Korean couple and the police might be a great propaganda stunt, it doesn't hold a whole lot of weight in international law. Even so, the fact that South Korea is the government which actually administers Dokdo with little real opposition from other countries (even Japan doesn't do as much as it actually could to take and occupy Dokdo) does in fact mean that, for all intents and purposes, Dokdo is South Korean territory. Of course, we're not really here to debate the actual ownership of Dokdo, and so should present both sides of the argument in as balanced a way as possible. --Zonath 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Zonath, I cannot agree with you in your arguement that, "While the occupancy of Dokdo by a Korean couple and the police might be a great propaganda stunt..." The Korean couple living in Korea as of now, has been living on the island before the relations between Korea and Japan became tense. As of the police, it is definitely not a propaganda "stunt". The Korean government beleives that because Dokdo is Korean land, it must be protected by the police, not the military. Only if Dokdo was in a true "dispute", both nations would send soldiers to occupy it with force. Oyo321 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but although I do agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place to be discussing ownership this talkpage originally meant to debate the naming of this article has no other choice than to boil down to the sky-high controversial issue of "who owns Dokdo." Its inevitable.

Also, Zonath, I'm sorry I cannot find the page that supports my statement above. My memory must be not as good as I thought it would be. But I do have a page that gives evidence of both sides of Korean and Japanese arguments. Oyo321 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html

Sorry, but I really can't characterize the inhabitation of Dokdo to be anything but a publicity/propaganda stunt, since it serves little other useful purpose and costs the South Korean government quite a bit of money each year. The article also states that the police on the island are military police (although the citation that follows seems to contradict this, saying that security is handled by the Gyeongsangbukdo police.) I'll go ahead and correct that, unless someone else has a source that actually shows that the police are military rather than civillian police. --Zonath 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

military police (Korean : Jeon Gyung) on Dokdo is police and they are not from military. I mean, they are totally different from MP (Korean : Heon Byung) that acts as police in military. Korean military has its own MP as is clearly shown in their different Korean names. There is no military personnel in Dokdo. --ginnre 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Beginning with the title of this discussion your claims are way too Korean POV. This discussion is not going anywhere. Good friend100 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Zonath: I think that the intention of the Korean government is more than just publicity. Although International Law is basically a crapshoot, the case law would suggest that the fact that there are people on the island is an important consideration that the court looks into when deciding whether there was continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty ala Island of Palmas Case). From what I've read, Japan is trying to create economic output on Okinotori for probably the same reasons.

I don't know what to say Good friend100 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Japan posesses whole Ocean? Does this show average level of Korean people? --Isorhiza 08:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I had spoken too outright.

I was kinda stimulated when I saw the words above-maybe I couldn't control myself.

I acknowledge that the Pacific is no one's private territory-it was a...foolish of me to speak that way.

But I believe firmly that Dokdo is Korean territory-we've got historical proofs-a lot more than our neighboring buddies do.

Anyway, I just dropped by to say sorry, that I was not thinking properly.

And please, do not judge my people on behalf on my foolish actions.

Don't worry, there's a surplus of fools in every country. After a while, you stop contemplating the idiocy of one country and start contemplating the idiocy of humanity. - Sekicho 12:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do the fools come from Korea? Are you calling Koreans stupid? Yes, this unknown writer has written down POV subjects, but we don't need name calling. Remember, this a Wikipedia discussion page and we must be polite.

Speaking of fools, your fellow Japanese Wikipedians are not making a nice image to themselves since they botched up the Dokdo vote in May by vandalizing the entire page. Also, numerous sock puppet accounts have been used by Japanese voters. If you think Koreans are so bad, think of what the Japanese Wikipedians and people from ni channeru have been doing.

And this is to all users on this discussion page...

Remember, vandalizing and name calling is not going to help you anymore. These kinds of acts are just going to make yourself and the country you represent look stupid and create a terrible image.

Remember to all the Americans, Koreans, Japanese, Filipino, Russian, French, Dutch, Congolese, etc etc!!!! This is Wikipedia, not a bloody free for all war! Please stay civil and stop the sarcasm. Good friend100 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Sekicho...

I've got a little somthin' to say.

I heard Japanese people kept very strict manners to themselves. They say every word with care, and are polite on every matters.

You don't seem like a Japanese to me.

When someone makes a formal apology, you do not retort with bitter sarcasm. That is a very impolite way to speak to other people.

If I were speaking to you face to face, do you think you could've said that?

I generally like the Japanese people. We held a worldwide event together in 2002, and I like many of their culture-my favorite cartoon is Japanese, Fullmetal Alchemist. We rooted for each other when we had matches with other countries. Also, every Japanese I've spoken to were very nice and pleasant. But you aren't.

We are bound in the same geographical region-that is, China, Japan, and Korea- that is called East Asia. We have cooperated with each other in the past, and probably our strongest partners in the future will be the 3 countries we reside in. Not the US, not England, nor France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Brazil...etc, but us. In that case, I believe it would be best if we learned to make harmony, not distrusts and hatred towards each other.

There may be arguments about the past. There always has been, and we each strongly believe in what we think is the truth. I respect your views about Dokdo, and although I am Korean, I am ready to believe your side of view once you have a very strong and stable evidence. Currently, as you know, all evidence is siding with us (Koreans) in claiming that Dokdo is ours. This you cannot dispute, and must accept, at least.

I hope one day all Eastern Asians can call each other friends and have limitless love and friendship towards each other. We have common things that westerners do not have-you know that too well yourself. Didigo10

Somebody needs to cool down. I don't think we got the message I wrote yesterday. Good friend100 14:30, 21 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)

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)

This is not going anywhere

Who wrote the following sentances?

"Well Sekicho...

I've got a little somthin' to say.

I heard Japanese people kept very strict manners to themselves. They say every word with care, and are polite on every matters.

You don't seem like a Japanese to me.

When someone makes a formal apology, you do not retort with bitter sarcasm. That is a very impolite way to speak to other people.

If I were speaking to you face to face, do you think you could've said that?

I generally like the Japanese people. We held a worldwide event together in 2002, and I like many of their culture-my favorite cartoon is Japanese, Fullmetal Alchemist. We rooted for each other when we had matches with other countries. Also, every Japanese I've spoken to were very nice and pleasant. But you aren't."

We don't need any insults, this is Wikipedia and we must be polite and keep a level tone. Whoever wrote this should leave their name and to that user, we don't need any insults to anyone and you are coming out too radically and way to Korean POV. I strongly suggest you stop your remarks because it is not going to do anything.

And this is to all users on this discussion page...

Remember, vandalizing and name calling is not going to help you anymore. These kinds of acts are just going to make yourself and the country you represent look stupid and create a terrible image. Good friend100 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Friend,

there seems to be some kind of error that does not display my full message.

Towards the end I stated that we should cooperate together, Koreans and Japanese, and so on.

I also stated that I hope for peace and full harmony in the future.

-_-man this is so frustrating.. Didigo10

Still, your messages don't seem very clear and the words are not very welcoming to me. There are other ways to represent yourself, like explaining Korea's position and why Dokdo should be Korean territory. We don't need to start heading toward vandalism (like what happened to this discussion page a few weeks ago).

I agree with what you said, but I think some users are not satisfied with what you have been saying and several Japanese users are not happy either. The atmosphere, I feel, of the discussion page has been becoming darker and I am hoping it doesn't become worse. Remember, if you are not polite in discussions, you can get banned.

thanks again Good friend100 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty funny, considering I'm not Japanese. - Sekicho 19:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am talking generally and I don't think I was pointing out specific people. Good friend100 00:36, 23 June 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 [9]

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)