Jump to content

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

POV

ALL of the references (in the References section, that is) are Korean. As this is a dispute between Japan and Korea, there should be references from both Japan and Korea, as well as references to articles and information found outside of either country. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because the references are from Korea does not mean the article itself is NPOV many editors have agreed that the article itself is NPOV. The references are mostly about Climate/Geography/Tourism/Residents, which were mostly only available from Korean pages anyway. I don't think this constitutes a violation of "NPOV" policy, as long as the article itself stays neutral. I think your argument was perceived valid on the External Links section there used to be a predominance of Korean materials. So there is now 2 Korean, 2 Japanese, and 2 Neutral (western) external links. Deiaemeth 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but it would do a great deal toward reducing any perceived bias by including several non-Korean articles as references. If someone (like me, for instance) came upon this article which is obviously about some islands whose ownership is disputed heatedly by two countries, and they saw (as I did) that all of the references cited in the article were Korean, what conclusion do you think they would draw from that? Likely the same as mine: that that article is very likely biased toward the Korean POV. I strongly suggest finding 3-5 Japanese or other non-Korean articles that can be referenced for this article. Some of the External links may prove useful in that respect. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess that could be arranged, but since most of the article is referenced, I don't know what to reference further. But the referenced materials itself aren't POV'd, as it is mostly about climage/geography/tourism/residents. The island itself is de facto administered by Korea, so most of the information is from Korean pages. Likewise, even though the ownership of Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands) is disputed, since Japan maintains de facto control, many materials are cited from the Japanese page (even though it has an NPOV tag, the dispute is with the history of the island/current situation, not with the references itself). Deiaemeth 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the overwhelming evidence points to Korean ownership of the islands. Have you ever thought about that? Feel free to add (relevant) evidence to the contrary.--Sir Edgar 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence!? I have to say most of evidence on Korean side isn't truthful. But I am not going to discuss whether it is reliable or not. We should discuss whether this article is POV or NPOV. I believe this article is too much on Korean side. For example, this article regards 石島(Seok-do) as Liancourt Rocks. But Japanese government does not think so. This description should be like this.
"On October 25, 1900, the Korean Empire issued incorporating the islands of Ulleung-do, Juk-do (竹島), and Seok-do (石島) into Ulleung county. Korean government regards Seok-do as the island now they call Dok-do because 石島(Seok-do) is pronounced "Dok-do" in the Gyeongsang dialect and the Jeolla dialect. Japan, however, claims it to be the different island now called Kwaneum-do because of lack of evidence that makes Seok-do the same island as Liancourt Rocks."
This article also says "Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate confirm in writing that Ulleung-do and the Liancourt Rocks were Korean possessions." But this is Korean insistence. It is true that Tokugawa Shogunate admited Ulleung-do as Korean posession but the ban on voyage to Ulleung-do did not referred to Liancourt Rocks. So this description should be like this.
"Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate confirm in writing that Ulleung-do were Korean possessions. But as for Liancourt Rocks, it is in question that Tokugawa Shogunate regarded the islets as Korean possessions because Liancourt Rocks were not refered to in this treaty. Korean government insists that Ulleung-do included Liancourt Rocks too. Japan insists that the Shogunate did not prohibited going to the islets because Japanese fishers continued to fish using Liancourt Rocks even after the prohibition on voyage to Ulleung-do. Japan and Korea have very different understanding of this incident because the remaining documents are so ambiguous that it is not easy to interpret what islands it is referring to."
This "Liancourt Rocks" article is too much on Korean side as demonstrated above. Especially the "Reference". They are all on Korean side and says the rocks are Korean territory. "Truth of Dokdo" says "Ahn Yongbok went to Japan and confirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory and prohibited Japanese fishermen from fishing near Dokdo." But this is just a Korean understanding and Japan does not regarding so as I described above.
"Tour 2 Korea" says "Dokdo Island is in the eastern reaches of Korea's territory" and that "After The Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592, Japanese fishermen often came near Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Sukjong Sillok, the Annals of King Sukjong(1674-1720), records that An Yongbok went twice to Japan in order to protest against Japanese nationals trespassing into Korean territory. He asked the Japanese authorities to recognize Korea's sovereignty over these islands and to forbid Japanese nationals to sail to these islands." This website affirms that Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory. Do you say this is no POV? This description also sound that there is some relation ship between the Korean invasion and the islets but there's no evidence which proves that and "there is no record of the exact date of Takeshima's discovery" ([1]). As for An Youngbok, Japan have a different understanding as I said.
All the other website linked to from "Reference" says the islets are Korean territory. How can you say they are not POV websites?
There are also a lot of websites saying the islests are Japanese teritorry (unfortunately, most of them are in Japanese). If we keep adding links those websites, this article would get into a panic. In order to maintain neutral point of view, the reference should not be here. -Michael Friedrich 17:02 14/05/2006

What I was trying to say is that there are only vague references to the islets in Japanese records. Most Japanese records are from 1905, when Japan assumed control of Korea. Nobody is stopping you from editing the context of any sentences. Please do so, if it you feel it is justified.--Sir Edgar 00:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you know nothing about Japanese insistence. It is not true that most Japanese records are from 1905. Japan had kept using the rocks for 300 years. I've got a lot of evidence that can indicates the Rocks are Japanese territory and that can break most of the Korean claims. But we're not talking about it.

I tried to edit a few times but there are some trying to stopping me from editing. I was even blocked from editting it unfairly. ---Michael Friedrich 10:15 17/05/2006

It is true that Japan did use Dokdo for quite a long time; but illegally. Oyo321 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Friedrich, you say you have many evidence to break korean claims. it would be interesting for me and others to know. Could you share it with Wikipedia? Yurushimasu00 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's see this evidence. I'm very interested in it, too. If it is relevant, then nobody should be stopping you from editing it into the article.
About the 1905 records, if you visit The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan site (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html), the primary emphasis is on post 1904-1905 claims. The Shimane Prefecture's site (http://www.pref.shimane.jp/section/takesima/eng/take6.html) lists only two (out of 28 total) historical facts dating before 1904-1905 supporting the Japanese case in its "Chronological Table of Takeshima".--Sir Edgar 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

citation needed tags

Can someone please clear up those "citation needed" tags by clarifying references, or whatever? It's really an eyesore to read like this, honestly. Mr Tan 04:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:V, any statement which is not verified upon request can be removed. If those tags have been there for a while, the statements should probably be pulled from the article. -Visviva 04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image use in article

I think the image use in this article is WAY out of hand. I can see using 3-4 of the maps, but there are at least 10-12 maps right now. A bit on the overkill side, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i'd have to agree. don't remember whether it's in talk here and/or sea of japan dispute, but map wars inevitably end badly, because there's no end to the number of maps that could be added by either side. if significant, the information is better integrated into the text content, imho. perhaps, if someone really wants, a separate gallery page could be linked from here. Appleby 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Article forking

Just an FYI on a related matter, but Janviermichelle (talk · contribs) just created a cut-and-paste copy of Sea of Japan naming dispute at East Sea (Sea of Japan) naming dispute. I changed it to a redirect to Sea of Japan naming dispute, but someone more knowledgable about POV forking and proper naming of redirects may want to look into it. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the thing called "POV forking", Calton mentioned above. I just started to look at this page and already the vote is over. What I don't understand is that this kind of dispute can be decided by a Vote!?! Wikipedia is encyclopedia and facts cannot be chosen by a vote. In this case, the fact is that this island is called Dokdo by Korean government which administrates the island.

Everyone calls Israel as Israel, because it's under Israeli administration. Just so you know, this area is claimed by Palestinians. Then what do you want to call? Make up another English name for Israel? --janviermichelle 16 May 2006

Try the following:

  • Parachuting in and unilaterally declaring how things are and attempting to override a years's worth of discussion by fiat or by sneaking in a name change won't get you far.
  • Read -- actually read -- the arguments made above instead of banging on irrelevancies about voting processes. [F]acts cannot be chosen by a vote. True, but irrelevent -- which facts to include were chosen by discussion. That it happened without you gives you no right to pretend it didn't happen.
  • Read -- actually read -- the archives of a year's worth of discussion. If you have something new to bring up, by all means, do so. If not, accept that you missed the boat.
  • Read the page on POV forking. No, really, actually read it. Also note that the way you did it -- by cutting and pasting -- effectively nullified the article's entire edit history for the material in the fork. Also a no-no. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Calton, thanks for the "kind" commment for a new user. I know what I did was wrong. I'm sorry about that. Really. I mean it. for all of you. And I really respect the archives of a year's worth of discussion. Really. I do. But your comment, "If not, accept that you missed the boat.", Do you really think that's the proper way? There will be lots and lots of users trying to edit this article with different points of view. Do you really think that a vote of some early users can choose the title of this article? This is not a matter of including something. I'm talking about the title. Thanks. --janviermichelle

janviermichelle, welcome to wikipedia. a good overview of wikipedia can be found at WP:5P. you are right, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. in fact, votes are a disfavored method to resolve content disputes. WP:V, WP:NPOV, & WP:NOR are "non-negotiable" principles that cannot be overridden by wikipedia consensus or by any of the countless "guidelines" floating around.

so take your time to peruse the policies and above discussions. as you can see, several editors have made some new comments recently on the naming issue, perhaps it is time to revisit. let's get some outside views, such as at WP:RFC, & see if we can make a better encyclopedia.Appleby 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Appleby, thank you very much. I appreciate that. janviermichelle 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Nonsence talk again. It is only sophism. Japan never used Hawaii as its own territory. Everybody would think that is very ridiculous if Japan demanded Hawaii. Japan has no evidence that makes Hawaii its territory. But the Liancourt Rocks have a different story. There has been a dispute for more than half a century. If Korea is sure to win, it should fight in a Court, not by arm. But that is irrelavent.
You don't understand what I am trying to discuss. It does not matter whether Japan is right or Korea is right. The problem is this article would give readers an impression that Wikipedia is supporting Korean view. The official sites would be enough. If readers of the article get interested in the issue they will study it themselves. We don't need those POV links here.
Michael Friedrich 15:58 18/05/06

"it does not matter whether Japan is right or Korea is right." is also POV. Think about Israel-Palestine territory, and how "it does not matter whether Israel is right or Palestine is right." sounds to Israelis and Palestinians. I don't think the past evidences matter when we talk about which country owns what. The current administrator does matter. Then we should say the US illegally occupies this land, that's why we call this land "the united states". The current goverment or the current administrator matters. Think about Taiwan and China. Taiwan should be called Taiwan. I think the current reference is okay. But the title of this article is too pro-japanese. it should be dokdo. Janviermichelle 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To the response of Michael Friedrich, you said that "Korea keeps rejecting the proposal."

First, let me tell you because I am Korean I know a lot of other things going on between Korea and Japan. The reason why Korea rejects the proposal is because Koreans do not want to give a chance for Japan to put a foothold on Liancourt Rocks. Korea does have stronger claims and I have read them in books and internet articles in Korean. Korea has occupied the islets since 500 A.D. And Japan is just suddenly aggresive toward Korea about the Liancourt Rocks issue because Japan is looking for natural gas that might be near Dokdo. Japan wants the rocks for more of economic reasons rather than historical fact. This is also the same reason why Japan is aggresive toward Russia's Kuril Islands and China's islands.

Also I would like to ask why you refer Korea as "it" and Japan as "she". There are too many pro-japanese people here. The islets are KOREAN territory. It might sound like I am biased because I am Korean, but I know the situation between Koreans and the Japanese. The islets are Korean territory and Korea has the right to name the islets. That is why this article should be called Dokdo.

Good friend100 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I had no intention referring Korea as "it" and Japan as "she". I didn't even realised since I am not a native English speaker even though I'm living in Australia. I am sorry if I hurt you.
I don't think it the islets are Korean territory. The evidence Korea is offering seems that they are too short of evidence that proves that the islands or territories mentioned in it are Dokdo. I also know the situation between Koreans and Japanese.
I want to argue against you, but I am not talking about it! You say this article should be called Dokdo, but I won't propose calling this article "Takeshima". It is because Wikipedia should maintain its neutral point of view.
Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Calling this article Dokdo is against this policy.
As for the "References", they make this article seem to support Korean view and to try to call the islets Dokdo, even though the name of the article is neutral, the Liancourt Rocks.
The name should be neutral. The contents should be neutral. Of course, links should be neutral and should not give readers an impression that the rocks are Korean territory or Japanese territory. I say once again "The official sites would be enough. If readers of the article get interested in the issue they will study it themselves. We don't need those POV links here.
In addition, it seems you know nothing about Kuril Islands. The situation on the islands is completely different from the Liancourt Rocks. Japan and Russia decided their border between Iturup and Urup by Treaty of Shimoda in 1885 perfectly peacefully. The islands does not have anything to do with Japanese deed in World War II. There's no doubt the islands are illegally invaded by Russia. "Michael Friedrich 13:45 19/05/06

So calling this article "Dokdo" is POV and Pinnacle islands "Senkaku islands" is perfectly NPOV? see discussion at the Senkaku Island talk pages please. Some editors try to maintain double standards in naming these articles, and to maintain POV, Liancourt Rocks will be moved to Dokdo or Senkaku islands to Pinnacle islands. Deiaemeth 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said so. Please feel free to propose having it to moved to Pinnacle Islands if you like. I did not mention the Senkaku Islands. That's all. However, the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo" either. Michael Friedrich 12:54 20/05/06


i think we should move this to Dokdo to be consistent with countless other disputed territories articles, rather than change all other articles. it's the de facto wikipedia practice to name disputed territories as they are called by the administering state, especially since liancourt is clearly not an established english name. Appleby 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The current name was chosen as a result of a vote. Be careful that you do not rename it without overturning that vote first. -Cjensen 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

although wikipedia is not a democracy & votes are disfavored, it is true that we should try to build consensus based on wikipedia policies, consistency, and proper references. we should contact everyone who voted above & WP:RFC, but before we do that, it would probably be best if someone (sir edgar?) can refactor this page so that the recent relevant discussions are easy for newcomers to read at a glance. Appleby 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


To some extent I agree with Deiaemeth and Appleby. In addition to my agreements of what they said, I feel that the political climate now suggests that Japan is losing grip of Takeshima/Dokdo, and if this matter is being brought to court, I believe that Liancourt would have a higher chance to acclaim political adminstration on Liancourt than Japan if the matter is brought to the international court, especially on the level of loyalty exhibited by Koreans--anti-Japanese riots are vigourously staged out whenever Japan voiced out its claims. There are plentiful of websites to support what I said.

If Liancourt goes to Japan in international court, it is feasible to predict that at least half of South Korea would create an uproar and that would cause political uproar.

To move to Dokdo: One, when Korea's soverignity is no longer contested and recognised internationally in (possible) future, and that will be a must if the occasion arises, and the same if Liancourt goes to Japan (Takeshima). Two, you might move now, but the Europeans and Americans would certainly look in one kind. In all English media in Asia (except Korea and Japan), in particular Singapore and Malaysia, mention of Liancourt Rocks would be "....Dokdo (Takeshima)...." format. Liancourt rocks is not used in Asian newspapers, and I can step up Singapore's and Malaysia's position to their reference mode to Liancourt Rocks. I hope my comments can bring some help. Mr Tan 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. i think dokdo (takeshima) would be fine in the article text, although i don't know about others' thoughts, & here too, we should be consistent with other disputed territory articles. but the question now i think is the article title, which wouldn't include parenthesis.
also, i would like to see this discussion focus on wikipedia policy, consistency w/ other analogous wikipedia articles, & proper citations. if we start to discuss the contents of the parties' arguments & take sides on who's right or what would happen if ..., it'll be hard to have a rational discourse on this encyclopedic style question. Appleby 05:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised. [2] According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory. And I am not taling about Senkaku island. Please discuss that dispute on the Talk of Senkaku island. And I am talking about the "References". They are included in Wikipedia to support Korean view although Wikipedia does not support either side and maitain its neutral point of view. That is what I am taling about.Michael Friedrich 06:32 20/05/06

I don't understand why other people think about this islets are important. (Also, I don't understand why "those four" countries are important for our discussion.) Be careful about statistics. And, apparently Senkaku article is related to this article. (if you care a bit about consistency) And I am talking about the "Title". It is included in Wikipedia to support Japanese view although Wikipedia does not support either side and maitain its neutral point of view. That is what I am taling about.Janviermichelle 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
And also, about the content you added, those kinds of adding can make this article infinitely long. There are endless of evidences out there in the media, supporting both POV. Furthermore, as I said above, those statistics are meaningless. They could've called people and asked questions and picked up whatever countries they want. This is NOT statistically meaningful data. and there are no explanation why those four countries were selected. Janviermichelle 11:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As for the references, I think those are not worth being mentioned as references. Those are merely internet links. Janviermichelle 11:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Janvier's link shows only a poll on a segment of a few people from each country, not the entire country. This is unaccurate.
For me, no harm having Liancourt, or Dokdo. The best is to wait for the answer from the International Court before we explicitly choose Dokdo or Takeshima or Liancourt again, although the amount of efforts and loyalty to Liancourt from Korea and Japan from both countries suggests that Korea stand a higher chance to win (US interference might increase/decrease chances, I don't know). As I have said, Koreans would get much more hurt than the Japanese, rather than the reverese if the International court rules out that Liancourt is either's territory, from the national climax of persepective countries and their vigor of anti feelings towards their counterparts. This is something that the whole world should know. Mr Tan 11:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term "Liancourt Rocks" is POV because either Korean or Japan calls it so. In 19th century, both countries called it the Liancourt Rocks. That is a very neutral name.
I did not say the dispute on Senkaku Islands is different from that of the Liancourt Rocks. Please feel free to propose having it to moved to Pinnacle Islands if you like. What I wanted to say is the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo".
As for the "References", those are not worth being mentioned as "References" as Janviermichelle says. I believe they are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Linking to those websites is like linking "Dragonball" to mere fansites like [[3]]. We don't need those links as long as the official websites are included.
It seems this discussion has become a discussion on the title. If you want to talk about the title please make a new section. Let's talk whether we need those "References" or not. Michael Friedrich 12:45 20/05/06

Hi, you said the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo". Would you say why? I just want to know... And I propose to move the references to a new section "Notes" (and maybe add some other references supporting japanese POV).Janviermichelle 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the reason why I said "the adoption of "Senkaku" does not justify moving this article to "Dokdo"" is that the adoption of Senkaku might be suitable for wikipedia but might not be suitable for wikipedia. The name Senkaku is currently adopted. That's all. That does not mean the adoption of "Senkaku" is right. If you think "the Pinnacle Islands" is better for wikipedia, please feel free to propose having the article to moved to "Pinnacle Islands". I am not against adoption of Pinnacle Islands (I am not for it either, though.)
 I think there're two ways we can take, removing whole of the "References" section or adding as many websites supporting Japanese view as the ones supporting Korean view. Your idea sounds interesting. But unfortunately, most websites supporting Japanese view are written in Japanese as I said above, and even if you add English websites of Japanese POV, they would be soon removed being said that "they are not reputable", "they are obscure ones" or "they are with little authority" as happened number of times.
I wonder moving the "References" to a new section makes any difference.
Michael Friedrich 15:00 21/05/06

Hmm... first I don't think those websites in the "references" section are suitable for it. Those are merely footnotes. So I proposed to moved those to a new section "Notes" (see Einstein). I don't think the notes are important, but since you raised this issue, we can talk. The websites you're going to add would not be soon removed if you add reputable ones. (I thought that the website you added before was obscure, not reputable and with little authority. I can make a website like that in an hour and say whatever I want.)
And you think Liancourt and Senkaku are different, independent articles.. okay. you can say that. But if there was some logic in naming Senkaku and if it can be applied to this article, we should think about it. And I don't think Senkaku is "adopted". Janviermichelle 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Those websites in the "References" are not suitable. Thank you.
As I said, most reputable websites are written in Japanese because it is more important to let the Japanese know about this dispute than letting the foreigners know about it. That makes the problem harder. And I am not sure moving the "References" to a new section can make any difference.
I did not say situation on Senkaku and that on Liancourt are different. I did not mention Senkaku although I believe Kuril is very different. The reason why I said Senkakuis adopted is that the article is currently called "Senkaku Islands". That's all. Then I withdraw what I said. Senkaku is "used".Michael Friedrich 16:15 21/05/06

I don't understand why we are talking about Senkaku Islands while this discussion is about Liancourt Rocks. Anyways Liancourt Rocks should be named Dokdo because Korea controls it! It is Korean territory. Therefore the Koreans have the right to name it. And also, we should be reminded that Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute over the rocks. Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory and Japan is merely claiming it. Japan is making it look like a dispute so it seems like the Liancourt Rocks could be Japanese territory.

You also said that Korea does not have enough evidence to say that the rocks are Korean territory since 500 A.D. That is not true. Korean records show that the rocks were Korean territory since that time.

Also, even if you are right, Liancourt Rocks would still be Korean territory because a map created in 1432 during the Chosun Dynasty shows that the rocks are part of Korea and that Liancourt Rocks could be seen from Ulleung-do. This is an earlier record than the records of Japan, which date from the 1600s. [[4]]

You keep saying that the article should be neutral. But your statements below and your tone of your arguments seem to me as if you are pro-japanese.

"The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised."

"According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory."

Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory! Even the Wikimachine in this discussion agrees that the islets are Korean territory. Good friend100 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your are talking very emotionally. Please understand what we're talking about.
I can object against your insistence that the islands those Korean documents are referring to are not the Liancourt Rocks[5]. But that is not we are talking about.
You keep saying Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute. I have to say this is very emotional and this is Korean POV. Britanica world map describes the islets as "Claimed by Korea and Japan." There are a lot of Territorial disputes on the planet and there is no doubt the Liancourt Rocks are one of them.
"The name Dokdo is not internationally standardised."
"According to this site, 66.7% of Malaysians, 58.8% of Australians, 55.6% of Indonasians, 54.5% of Filipinos regard the islets as Japanese territory."
I quoted those data because your talk is too pro-Korean. (Note that I quoted this date from a Korean website.) Your argument sounds to me as if other countries also recognise the islets as Korean territory. I did not showed you this data as evidence that makes the islets Japanese territory. I only wanted to show you there is a dispute because you keep saying there's no dispute on the islets. The name of the article should be Liancourt Rocks. If the United Nations adopts "Dokdo" as standard name used in a conference, it is very safe to say the name is internationally standardized because the UN is the only organization that most countries on the planet participate in, even if Japan is against it.
What I want to talk about is not which country is right because there is a dispute between two countries and we are not in a position to decide which is right. I want to discuss whether we need the "References" section and whether it is against wikipedia policy or not. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories."Michael Friedrich 06:22 22/05/06
"Korea and Japan are NOT in a dispute ... Liancourt rocks are Korean terriroty and Japan is merely claiming it." Erm... Not to nitpick or anything, but in general, whenever two countries maintain claims to one territory, that generally constitutes a dispute, no matter which side currently occupies and administers that territory. So, I would say that no matter how you try to whitewash it, if Japan claims some part of Korean territory, then that constitutes a territorial dispute. Now, whether or not those claims are non-frivolous or justifiable is another matter entirely, but it isn't really up to Wikipedians to make value judgments on competing claims, so please stow those horrible dueling maps for the time being.
Although Korea is in control of these islets, that does not necessarily forclose the issue of the name of this article. After all, in many cases, the commonly-known English name for some place is different from the name that the controlling country recognizes. In many cases, the name is relatively similar (Milano --> Milan). However, in many other cases, the name is pretty radically different (Suomi --> Finland). Unfortunately, in this case, we have two names which appear to be pretty close in what portion of the English-speaking world would recognize each, and an English name which isn't really as widely-known, but is at least neutral as to the dispute between Korea and Japan. Personally, I think it makes more sense to use the name used by the country that actually occupies the territory or the more commonly-used English name (if there is one), in which case the proper name of this article should be 'Dokdo'. But there just isn't much consensus for using that name, and more people seem to think that it comports better with the Wikipedia NPOV policy to use 'Liancourt Rocks' for the title of the article. It also seems a bit silly that people are actually writing bloody dissertation-length arguments over a couple of insignificant rocks in the sea, but there you are... --Zonath 06:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Those rocks are, as you said, insignificant, but Koreans think the Japanese claim on dokdo is a part of, or an extention of the "imperial Japan". This makes Koreans be so obsessed with dokdo. And this article should be entitlred to dokdo. Liancourt rocks is even less commonly used.Janviermichelle 17:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Janvier' statement. Liancourt Rocks is the most uncommon name used for Dokdo. I'd also like to make a counterstatement on zonath's statement, "...bloody dissertation-length arguments over a couple of insignificant rocks in the sea, but there you are..." I want to say that I don't think zonath understands the importance, and yes, obsession of the naming of these certain islets. there are many who misunderstands the feeling of Koreans who have owned the islets for so long, have not just Japan, but others supporting the fact that Japan is the rightful owner of Dokdo. How would we like it if Canada claimed Alaska, suddenly arguing that, in the 19th century, "we actually owned Alaska, and that Russia and America had no right to bargain over it." Oyo321 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


--133.67.59.185 11:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Mkaz==Requested move== Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo – per talk:Liancourt Rocks and talk:Senkaku Islands--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Endroit 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo – per talk:Liancourt Rocks and talk:Senkaku Islands--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the main article has been moved, could someone with the proper knowhow move this discussion page to Talk:Dokdo as well? --Zonath 05:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support It should be either "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle" for consistency of the application of naming by governing power, with preference for the former due to wider usage.--Sir Edgar 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Dokdo and Senkaku are the most commonly used English names, and also the names of administering countries. Janviermichelle 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • support for consistency with other disputed territory articles in wikipedia; dokdo (& variant spellings) is also more common in english, far more common than liancourt. Appleby 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • support consistency is the norm. We wouldn't want to support double standards in matters some editors deem controversial, would we? Deiaemeth 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very logical in appeal to Sir Edgar's explanation. This eliminates irony. (I don't harbour anti-Japanese feelings, please!) Mr Tan 11:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but only because it's a workable rule. I wo--Namusan 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)uld prefer a solution that does not support the claim of either side, but since we have Israel and there isn't really a good alternative, we might as well have Dokdo. So long as there's a standard. - Sekicho 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely consistency. Also Dokdo is Korean territory so it should be named that.

Good friend100 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support for consistency with all other contested territories. Double standard in naming the Sino-Japanese disputed island Senkaku while naming this island in some obscure way is hypocrisy.

Sydneyphoenix 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, though one should absolutely make sure to give the opposition sufficient time to notice and take part in the poll before such a change takes place. Rōnin 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with that comment. We almost have a quorum of Koreans in this vote, and no Japanese. Again, I only give my "support" vote with reservations; "Dokdo" is appropriate as a main title only, for consistency's sake only, until the status of the island is finally settled between the two countries (wake me when that happens). - Sekicho 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I too have been puzzled by the dearth of "Japanese" (and I don't mean to imply ethnicity on people who aren't Japanese) votes in this survey. However, my perspective would be that they have received adequate notice, and the same notice has anyone who has participated in the survey. This talk page discussion is how these surveys are usually done. In fact, some people who might have been expected to vote have edited the main article or the discussion page but have not voted, which is evidence that they have had notice but have chosen not to vote. Also, anyone who really is worth their salt would have this page on their watchlist if they really cared. I agree that some more time should be given, isn't Wikipedia policy "several days"? But, an absence of a vote after a reasonable amount of time, suggests to me, that people who have abstained have chosen to waive their right to vote, not that they haven't received notice. Tortfeasor 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I suppose it could be because of the difficulty of arguing against the logic of the governing authority's name taking precedence over others. Also, perhaps some people don't want Senkaku changed to Pinnacle? For insisting on unequal application of naming conventions would seem hypocritical... Personally, I prefer "Dokdo" and "Senkaku" with other names like "Takeshima" and "Diaoyutai" mentioned in the opening paragraph.--Sir Edgar 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, for consistency's sake alone. Liancourt Rocks is used somewhat commonly in English, though not nearly as commonly as either Dokdo or Tokdo from what I can tell, still recognizable, though. Liancourt Rocks seems to be the name used when one wants to avoid the dispute altogether, but it's as outdated as Quelpart. — AKADriver ☎ 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support due to Google survey. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Zonath 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I will neither support nor oppose, but I'll ask you all to consider: if administrator's precedence is taken as a principle, should the West Bank be moved to Judea and Samaria? If no, then can you explain why not, as Israel administers the area and calls it that? Jpatokal 08:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Dokdo" is not only the name used by the governing authority, but also the commonly used name. That is not the case with Judea and Samaria.--Sir Edgar 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "Commonly used" would be a good reason. Could you share your evidence that this is the case? (Keep in mind, I'm not disputing your comment, just asking for the pointer to evidence.) -- Cjensen 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I wonder if I'm asking an unsolvable question? A Google search generally coughs up articles about the dispute, which naturally mentions what both countries call the rocks even in articles which are partisan on the issue. Since it's a fairly well-publicized dispute, both Takeshima and Dokdo appear close to equally due merely to the completeness of reporting. How else can one determine objectively what the most commonly name is? (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)). -- Cjensen 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
          • If that's the case (both Dokdo and Takeshima appear equally, then you can just compare the google search results. Someone did that carefully and it's in one of the talk-archives. And you can do it on your own, but please be careful, Dokdo has various names (Tokdo, Tokto etc) and Takeshima is not-uncommon japanese surname.Janviermichelle 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • We call Deutschland Germany. Dokdo is the most common name among the candidates. Janviermichelle 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a more complex question, seeing as how the name "West Bank" was actually created by the Jordanian authority in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, and the area was administered by the Jordanians until 1967. One thing that differs from this case and the West Bank case though is that West Bank is actually more commonly used by international authorities, but Liancourt Rocks isn't. Another thing is that differs from this case and the West Bank case is that West Bank is an area populated by cultures and ethnic groups in dispute where plethora of cultures have clashed against one another, whereas Dokdo consists of two uninhabited island. The two cases have too too many differences to be directly compared, apart from the fact that some authorities are in dispute about th territories. True, the administrators's presence (not precedence, as Jordanians and other cultures have inhabited West Bank areas for a while) should not be taken as ABSOLUTE factor in determining the name for a given region, but seeing as how this case is much more similar to the Senkaku islands case than the West Bank case, we should follow the norm and consistencies cases similar to this one. Also, as Appleby demonstrated, Dokdo seems to be a more common name anyway. Deiaemeth 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Appleby! Don't move freely! This is conspiracy by a small number of Korean.

---
POLL CLOSED. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, the time for discussion may be extended only if a consensus has not emerged. Consensus has emerged with 100% Support (14 Support vs. 0 Oppose).
All comments below were posted after the 5-day period of the poll. One vote (Neutral by Endroit) is not only late, but also not applicable as the poll asked for Oppose or Support only.
---
I agree that my vote doesn't count, as Sir Edgar just said. I also don't object to the article name being changed. However, I contend that Sir Edgar conducted this poll improperly by:
  1. Tying this poll to Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands. The rules in Wikipedia:Requested moves clearly do not allow for such a tie-in. I think a lot of people were confused by this tie-in, and may feel that Sir Edgar pulled a fast one.
  2. Not discussing the nature of the survey beforehand. Everybody is advised to read Wikipedia:Straw polls on how to conduct surveys. First of all, rule 2 says "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process."
Other people are welcome to comment or vote below as well to further build a consensus.--Endroit 09:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
---
Again, Endroit, you didn't do your homework. On May 16, I commented about the inequality in the application of NPOV with the two articles, Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Islands here (as kindly pointed out by Appleby). I suggested the articles be entitled, respectively:
1. "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands"; or
2. "Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands"
One week later, as prescribed by the very Wikipedia rule 2 you mentioned, the poll was conducted.
There was no "tie-in". I saw the disparity in the application of NPOV and I believe I suggested it first at talk:Senkaku Islands. But then I realized that "Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands" were far more commonly used and appropriate than "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands". Thus, my focus primarily on the discussion of changing "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" rather than "Senkaku Islands" to "Pinnacle Islands". As I have stated previously, either way is acceptable to me. But there must be consistency in the application of NPOV.--Sir Edgar 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It's listed on Wikipedia:Current surveys. HenryFlower 11:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow...a conspiracy by Koreans...do you have any proof for that? I would rather think Japanese people would conspire because they want Dokdo so much anyways. Good friend100 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I really don't care which way it goes. As I have stated before, I prefer "Dokdo/Senkaku" though. Regardless, if "Dokdo" is not acceptable, then "Senkaku" MUST be edited to "Pinnacle" for the very same reasons stated by those who (belatedly) oppose the move. Anyhow, what's done is done. Wikipedia rules have been followed in the process of the move. (Bending the rules by extending the deadline for the vote sets a bad precedent.) If the situation of the islets change, then the title can change, too. But apparently, there was not an equal application of naming standards between the two articles last year. This has been fixed. --Sir Edgar 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the main article has been moved, could someone with the proper knowhow move this discussion page to Talk:Dokdo as well? --Zonath 05:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OpposeSouth 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)

Looks like a case of 火病.

OPPOSE Whilst the title to this island is situated at the centre of the current legal dispute, the dispute concerning its international name is also part of it. Thus, it is unfair to show information on this island under one of the names alleged by either parties, if we consider the transnational influence of Wikipedia even though not being a governmental project per se. As there exists an alternative third-party name 'Liancourt Rocks', this would be the most fair and legitimate one to be used provisionally between both parties so as to avoid additional and unecessary conflicts, at least until the legal dispute is wholly settled, hopefully, at the International Court of Justice. Remember, this is an international legal dispute which can also be brought to the Security Council of the United Nations; the current situation idicates that ROK has committed "illegal occupation by force" or even "aggression" which is prohibited by international law. (--Koskenniemi 12:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Oppose 竹島は李氏朝鮮時代の朝鮮政府に、存在すら知られていなかったはず。 Chatochan 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose NPOV. Neither Dokdo nor Takeshima are politically correct.

Oppose The unilateral "Dokdo" violates NEUTRAL policy that ALL wikipedians are required. --Yuan.C.Lee 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose --Sanchaman 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I agree that 'The unilateral "Dokdo" violates NEUTRAL policy that ALL wikipedians are required'.--mimomemo 02:45, 1 June 2006 (GMT)

Oppose the English name should be the one used over local names in all wikipedia articles, even if it is less common in popular media. Masterhatch 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Takeshima is a peculiar territory to Japan.

Oppose The unilateral "Dokdo" violates NEUTRAL polocy that ALL wikipedians are required. --Yuan.C.Lee 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As for Takeshima, it is necessary not to have known even existence to a Korean government in a Mr. Lee Korean age.

Oppose South Korea keeps occupying it by the military power not based on International Law. They do not appear in court because there are even no grounds that can be insisted in International Court of Justice.

Oppose Most of people in the world don't know the Korean word dokdo. Liancourt Rocks is better.--Hskf4

Oppose Sorry for being late, but ... what am I late for? Nobody has ever set a deadline here, and since I wanted to vote in the last minute after contemplating all the discussions, I really did not have the chance to vote.--Dwy 11:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to encourage you to register and join Wikipedia. Perhaps we can get more positive contributions from you on an ongoing basis?
As for the International Court of Justice, would the United States agree to go to court if Japan asked it to hand over Hawaii? This is a hypothetical question, but the answer is "no" and I think South Korea sees no reason to consent to what it sees as an unreasonable and unnecessary request. Furthermore, as pointed out below, one of the ICJ judges is a Japanese person named Hisashi Owada (who also happens to be the father-in-law of Crown Prince Naruhito, the heir to the Japanese Chrysanthemum Throne).
Looking at The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan site on the issue(http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html), I see only three core statements regarding the Japanese claim.
1. "Japan has long known about the existence of Takeshima." (So has Korea, but even longer than Japan and has historical records dating back to 500 AD pointing to Korean authority over the islets.)
2. "At the beginning of the Edo period (1618) the Ohya and Murakawa families of Houki-Han were granted permission from the Tokugawa Shogunate to take feudal tenure of Utsuryo Island, and ever(y) year the families conducted fishing on and around the island, sending some of their catch of abalone in tribute to the Shogunate. Takeshima was en route to Utsuryo Island and was used as a stopover port and for fishing. In addition, at the latest by 1661 the Ohya and Murakawa families had been granted feudal tenure of Takeshima from the Shogunate." (As stated by MOFA on the same page, in 1696, as a result of negotiations between Japan and Korea, the Tokugawa Shogunate prohibited Japanese from fishing in the area.)
3. "In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision in January, followed by a notification by Shimane Prefecture in February, officially incorporating Takeshima as part of Shimane Prefecture. Subsequently Takeshima appeared on the State Land Register, and a system of approval for sea lion hunting on Takeshima was introduced, which continued until its termination in 1941 due to the Second World War." (1905 is the same year that Japan annexed Korea. The Koreans could not effectively protest this incorporation as their state no longer existed. Thus, the Japanese action could be seen as "illegal".)
MOFA's case seems weak at best and the mention of such documents like those issued by SCAPIN have obvious omission of key facts that support the Korean case (as described in the Dokdo article). Furthermore, there is no reasoning provided by MOFA that backs the claim that South Korean occupation of the islets should be deemed "illegal".
In other words, I was quite disappointed by MOFA's claims on "The Issue of Takeshima".--Sir Edgar 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose South Korea keeps occupying it by the military power not based on International Law. They do not appear in court because there are even no grounds that can be insisted in International Court of Justice. Oppose The name "Dokdo" is inappropriate. It is Korean. South Korea has been declining to go to the international court on this matter since they know they would lose against Japan.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The vote has already ended. I hope your announcement of this end at the source where you knew the vote if can you do. Thanks. Reito-maguro 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE But I still oppose. Show me evidence that Dokdo is the most common English name. Google serch does not show us commoness of Dokdo because some of those websites could be made by Korean people. Only the percentage of the use of Dokdo in maps made in English speaking countries are reputable. If you can show us evidence that most English maps adopt the name Dokdo, that can justify the use of "Dokdo" in wikipedia. Or, if the United Nations officially calls it Dokdo, it also can justfy the use of Dokdo. But if not, since there are a lot of people who oppose having it moved, let's start a vote all over again. Michael Friedrich 15:33

Michael Friedrich, you should keep yourself cool. I expect that your act call wrong followers. Now your opinion is not good for solving problems in this vote. Reito-maguro 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he has "hwabyeong"? See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%81%AB%E7%97%85 for symptoms. LOL.--222.233.205.166 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe I am keeping myself cool. I am not saying the islets are Japanese territory or Korean territory either. I am opposed to having the article moved to Dokdo not because I say the islets are Japanese territory or something like that. I only want to keep the article neutral. There are about 30 people who are opposed to having the article moved but those votes are not counted for some reason. That is why I suggested taking a vote again. As for Senkaku, I am not opposed to having it moved to Pinnacle either if that can make the aricle more neutral.
Who do you call wrong followers? You may call "wrong" those who are opposed to having it moved to Dokdo. I cannot say that is a reasonable act. I do not get why you say my opinion is not good for solving problems. I think the biggest problem is that the votes by those who are opposed are not counted somehow. Please tell me what is a good act to solve the problem.
"Hwabyeong"? 화병? I am not Korean. Michael Friedrich 12:22 05/06/2006 UTC
I think that you should keep a rule. The "wrong" means breaking a rule. I think that you should propose your suggestion at another part of this note because edit of this entry, "Survey", is forbidden now. One who ignores rules is ignored.Reito-maguro 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Plaese survey the genuine history. --Namusan 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose 反対のコメント Namusan 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose As for Takeshima, even existence is not known to a Korean government in a Mr. Lee Korean age. Rohirino 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this entry "Survey". Your edit is not good for your purpose.Reito-maguro 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the English name should be the one used over local names in all wikipedia articles, even if it is less common in popular media.ouki 0:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Takeshima is a Japanese territory.South Korea has not known Takeshima until recently. --URINARA 16:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose What's "Dokdo" ? That's Japanese island "Takeshima". Does Korean know genuine history ?

OpposeThe range in a Japanese territory was fixed by the San Francisco peace, and it was fixed finally also that Takeshima was a Japanese territory as usual.

Oppose 反対のコメント 61.119.161.103 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Please go out to International Court of Justice by all means. It is child to insist that the country that disregards International Law is a territory of the home country on International Law before though said that the president of your country will capture the ship of Japanese Government disregarding International Law when bottom of the sea in the vicinity of Takeshima is measured. OpposeAs for Takeshima, there is an official document admitted that it is a Japanese territory without all after the war by U.S.A. in the fact that was considered to be a Korean territory once in recorded history, and it is impossible that there is a name except it to Takeshima with Takeshima. Tonkatu 11:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 

oppose oppose oppose

"Less commonly known?"

Can we discuss this in talk before we go into an edit war. Is the question whether Takeshima is less commonly known than Dokdo or another standard? Tortfeasor 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo is a much more common name and Takeshima is used mostly in Japan. When referring to Dokdo people name it both "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" to show Japan's claim on Dokdo.
Good friend100 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not it. Dokdo is most commonly known as Takeshima in Japanese, not less commonly known. Therefore, the sentence that was removed was incorrect. It was originally meant to say Dokdo was less commonly known as Takeshima in English. Rōnin 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the edit you're referring to was actually unrelated to the question of what to call the island. Rōnin 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooh! The current version's not bad at all though! Look at that! Rōnin 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I just changed the beginning. Takeshima is less commonly known in the world. It is exclulsively used in Japan and by pro Japanese. Dokdo is the more common name and it is also the right name for the article because it is under Korean control. Good friend100 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Now you're spreading blatant misinformation. Korea uses Dokdo, Japan uses Takeshima, and most other countries (and international media organizations) use both, as we have repeatedly noted earlier in this argument. Your view that it is "exclusively" used by the pro-Japanese side is wrong. Sekicho 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Takeshima was "exclusively" used by Japanese imperialists only. Now that that the "dispute" is known internationally, some who choose to refer Dokdo as "Takeshima" do so, and those who wish to refer to it as "Dokdo." Oyo321 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
And Dokdo was "exclusively" used by Koreans only. Times change, buddy. Sekicho 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is calling me buddy supposed to be positive or negative? Put it this way, Takeshima is the most commonly used name in Japan and Dokdo is the most commonly used name in Korea. And all the foreigners use both Dokdo and Takeshima when referring to the islets.

What are you talking about "Dokdo was exclusively used by Koreans only," everyone in Korea calls it Dokdo and Koreans only use Takeshima when referring to Japan's claim on the islets. Good friend100 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, please discuss less-commonly-known name of "Liancourt Rocks" in English-speaking countries. I think that your claim is unsuitable for this topic in English version of wikipedia. If we discuss this topic with the inclusion of Japanese and Korean people as you do above, "Dokdo" is lesser known (or used) than "Takeshima"　based on common sense, because the number of Japanese is much more than that of Korean. Reito-maguro 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello to Reito maguro..about which name is more common...the words Dokdo and Takeshima are not used only by Korean and Japanese people. Literally, you are correct that there are more people that call the islets "Takeshima" since Japan has a larger population than Korea. But, I am talking about foreigners too. Korean supporters call the islets "Dokdo" while Japanese supporters call it "Takeshima".

We are discussing whether or not the phrase "Takeshima is less commonly known than Dokdo" I agree with you that in Japan, Takeshima is much more popular. I am arguing that "Takeshima" is less commonly used because Dokdo is Korean territory and most people call the islets Dokdo. Also, most atlases label the islets "Dokdo" only recently they have changed it to "Dokdo (Takeshima)". Good friend100 01:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussion, Good friend100. Sorry, I might mislead you by my previous suggestion. I think that it's preferable to discuss less-commonly-known name of "Liancourt Rocks" only in English-speaking countries, because this topic is about an article of English version of Wikipedia. The title of the article should be user-friendly for English-speaking people. Your discussion seems mainly about Japanese and Korean people. However, both of Japan and Korea are not English-speaking countries.
I can not agree with your claim in the later part of your discussion because of the following reasons. First, I point out that the occupation of this island is not related to the common use of "Dokdo" in English-speaking countries. Please remind yourself that we discuss a title of an article for English-speaking people. Second, I can not confirm that most atlases change the label of the islands. In fact, I can find the label of "Liancout Rocks"in world atlus of MSN Encarta now. I can also find the label of "Liancout Rocks" in other maps. The label of "Dokdo" is able to find in some maps. However in such cases it is written with the labels of "Liancout Rocks/Takeshima", and with a caution of "dispute". Please consider these. Thanks again.Reito-maguro 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To Sekicho...yes you say that the name Liancourt Rocks should be used in this article since it is the English version of Wikipedia. But, for example, if we are talking about Tokyo, Tokyo is Japanese and it is the capital of Japan. We do not call Tokyo "Japan's Capital City". Tokyo is a foreign word to English speakers technically. We call Tokyo because that is its name. The same goes for Dokdo. Dokdo is a more common name for Liancourt Rocks, and the name Liancourt Rocks are mainly used by neutral observers. We already know that currently, Dokdo is under South Korean control, so South Korea therefore has the right to name the islets, even if Japan claims the islets right now.

To Reito...In the atlas "Philip's Great World Atlas" on page 54 of Japan, the label of "Tok-do" is printed on there. This atlas is a 2001 edition. Can you state the maps you have found with the name of Liancourt Rocks? Thanks. Also, atlases will usually name the islets "Liancourt Rocks" because atlas creators solely focus on their profit and will put "Liancourt Rocks" to ensure there will be no objections to the atlas that might hurt the profit. Thanks again for the discussions. Good friend100 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC) OpposeThe island name is TAKESHIMA!! The island is Japanese island.218.129.98.103 09:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC) OpposePlease study International Law.163.180.21.58 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Oppose 'Takeshima' is the real name for this island. Atsumi 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Oppose This island name is TAKESHIMA. Japanese island.

Oppose I have heard there is a Cyber terrorist group "VANK" that is secretly supported by Korean goverment and propagating false information worldwide. I am strongly against such dirty business which contaminates "Wikipedia".

A mild case of 火病.

Oppose Takeshima island(Liancourt Rocks) has Japanese dominion since 1905. And ”Treaty of Peace with Japan(1951)” recognized Takeshima island as Japanese dominion. So name of "Dokdo(unlawful detainer)" is local name at Korean language.Ogatomo 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Oppose 反対のコメント JossWest1990 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Let me guess this straight, I've heard some people stating that, because Japan had colonzied and ruled Korea in the 1900s, therfore, all laws stating that Korea was officially Japanese land is still in effect today, making Dokdo Japanese land. Um, excuse me, that stuff is over. Japan lost the war, and Korea has been free from Japanese annexation quite a long time now. All those laws claiming that Dokdo and such are Japanese land are dead, and no evidence out of those can be extracted in favor of Japan Oyo321 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Juk-do (竹島)

This isn't elaborated on in the article, but an island called Juk-do (竹島) in Korean is mentioned several times, whose name has the same meaning as Takeshima (also (竹島). Is it known whether these names have or could have any connection? Could the Japanese or the Koreans at some point have confused Dokdo and Jukdo? Rōnin 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese use Jukdo to help their claims. Whenever Korean records state that Dokdo is Korean territory, Japan always believes that the records are about Jukdo, not Dokdo. If you want to know who is confused with Dokdo and Jukdo, thats Japan.
Good friend100 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting; thanks. Rōnin 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It's an oversimplification of the story in an attempt to push one view regarding the issue. See this blog post for a more complete story about the confusion of the islands and how it's been used by the Japan side to [try to] debunk things. Sekicho 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you as well... I love the title, by the way.... "Flying Yangban"! :) Rōnin 16:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the internet article, helped clear things up a bit. Good friend100 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 'OpposeThis is Korean one-side opinion.

The Japanese people never use "Juk-do." This is Korean pronunciation and the title of this section should be "Takeshima or Juk-do (竹島)" because 竹島 is Japanese name. This article is completely one-side oppinion from Korean.

What was that? I thought I heard someone say something, but it seemingly came from nowhere. How intriguing! However, you seem to be confusing Takeshima and Juk-do. The island that's called Juk-do now is not the same island that's called Takeshima. Rōnin 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Move by anonymous

Since the article was first moved to Dokdo once and then moved back by an anonymous user, should we consider protecting the article as soon as the final move's been completed? Rōnin 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not anonymous. I moved it. Objectman 28 May 2006
(I'm 99% sure anonymous users can't move articles). But yes, it should be move protected. HenryFlower 12:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to keep Dokdo as the title because currently it is under Korean control, therefore Korea has the right to name it. Also, you should state why you moved the article first.

Good friend100 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Oppose Dokdo true name is Takeshima is a Iland where Koreans stealing from Japan. 210.132.218.151 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Another case of 火病.

Oppose Dokdo true name is Takeshima is a Iland where Koreans stealing from Japan. 60.41.109.44 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This person must have gotten same strain of 火病 as above.

--61.205.155.128 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Oppose 反対のコメント 61.205.155.128 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't move freely by the argument of a small number of people for only five days.

Liancourt Rocks is the dispute area in Japan and Korea. It is not neutrality to change the Korea name into a title. There is no room of an argument. Objectman 28 April 2006

Too fast to make agreement of chage to the Korean name. This change is not neutrally and fair. And dokudo isn't regarded as international name. I oppose this chage.Eastwest36 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys might want to vote against the move then! The vote's near the bottom of the page. Rōnin 11:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We did not know that there was vote. It was decided while we did not know. The ballot results consulted about which and decided only by Koreans are invalid. Objectman 28 April 2006

IT'S ALL KOREANS! THEY'VE POISONED THE WATER SUPPLY! KILL THEM ALL. LOL. (SARCASM) See 1923 Great Kanto earthquake.--222.233.205.166 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Then you should put your objections on the vote. If you didn;t know about the vote, well now you know about the vote.

Good friend100 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The vote doesn't seem to have a closing date, though, so it should still be absolutely possible to vote. Or perhaps one should start a separate vote to move the article back. This seems to be a diffiult issue, though, and I can see why the article was located at Liancourt Rocks before.
Oh, and I think your system clock is a month off! Rōnin 14:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks are now under dispute but the oppsite vote is too few. I think it was artifical. Too short vote announcement period makes the vote unfair.Bright888 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by "artificial?" jesus christ. Janviermichelle 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In International Law, it becomes a debatable ground by expressing the protest of another country. Takeshima is already a debatable ground according to the declaration of the protest of Japan. Using the Korean name in the debatable ground lacks fairness. [The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest(LIGITAN AND SIPADAN CASE(ICJ 2002)]--Opp 18:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bright888, the rules are the rules. If you would like to propose a move back, then do so following the Wikipedia guidelines.--Sir Edgar 06:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar, of course the rules are the rules. lol. But this records of yours are remembered by wikipedians like the referee of FIFA World Cup 2002 in Korean gemes is remembered by World People. :-)Bright888 12:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds kinda immature. I'm not Korean, by the way.--Sir Edgar 05:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm copying your kinderness. I'm following you.:-)Bright888 09:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! A stalker!--222.233.205.166 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is necessary to keep the name of Liancourt Rocks to prevent the edit battle. --Kamosuke 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Senkaku Islands is a very neutral name. Deiaemeth 18:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Deiaemeth. Thank you in agreement with Liancourt Rocks. Senkaku Islands？I do not attach too much importance to to the name of Senkaku Islands. I have not edited the article.
Although there is a problem by calling the island Takeshima or a Dokto, why does it carry out resigning the other way of calling, Liancourt Rocks? To redirect from Liancourt Rocks to Dokto, Just only korean and their servant are pleased. WasedaTOLDER 5:37, 1 Jun 2006 (JST,UTC+9)
I find the above comment very offensive. What "servant(s)" are you talking about?--Sir Edgar 06:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess the Japanese way of describing "Dokdo" supporters, the way they describe foreeigners "kitanai" Oyo321 23:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RFD

I have closed the RFD nomination as a speedy keep. As the stated rationale was that the redirect needed to be deleted for Dokdo to be moved back, this is not a valid case for RFD. Page renames belong at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. Thanks. -JLaTondre 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope the issue gets resolved that way. Rōnin 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dokdo Article

I might be biased because I'm Korean, but I think the article is pro Japanese. Every single Korean record or claim over Dokdo always has a following note that "Japan interprets it differently..." "The interpretation is disputed..." Its too pro Japanese. Whoever wrote this trys to make it sound like Japan has a strong claim on Dokdo which is definitely not true.

Korea has been controlling Dokdo a lot longer than Japan. The earliest Japanese record comes from the 1600s. Although the Korean records are older, it seems as if the article downgrades the Korean claims. I think we need to change the article's tone. Thanks for the replies Good friend100 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So what would you rather do, ignore Japan's claims? Sekicho 14:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I would. Oyo321 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be very biased though, certainly not fit for an encyclopedia. In fact, I'm sure the Japanese could say the same thing about the Korean claims. Rōnin 15:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Korea can't "claim" that the island is there's. Its Korean territory. Just as we cant "claim" that Hawaii is owned by the United States. It already is. Oyo321 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You appear to not understand the word claim. The word "claim" does not imply anything about whether or not the claim is valid. If a piece of land is undeniably Korean, it is still correct to say "Korea claims this land." "The US claims Hawaii" is both factual and disputed. -Cjensen 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, Cjenson. You could say that "Dokdo is claimed by South Korea." It's just that nobody really uses that word. "Claim" is used more for something like, "I claim that parking spot." What would you automatically say, "I claim my backyard," or "I own my backyard?" Oyo321 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the current text states that Korea controls the islands, but only Japan claims them. Without a claim to the islets, this sentence accidently infers that Korea is knowingly encroaching on Japan's territory. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to say that, but that's what the text says. It's like saying the driveway in front of my house is claimed by me and you are parking in it -without a counter claim by you saying it's yours, it makes you look like you are doing something wrong. -Cjensen 08:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Korea claimed Dokdo long ago and it is already part of Korean territory. Japan is merely claiming it today.

To answer Sekicho, I wouldn't ignore Japan's claims to the island I just want to discuss whether or not the tone of the article is too pro Japanese. And as I already said, Japan does not have strong claims on Dokdo, really Japan claims it for economical reasons (fishing, gas reserves, etc).

To answer Cjensen, if Dokdo is claimed by Korea, that can imply that Dokdo might not be Korean terrtory and it might be Japanese territory as well. But this contradicts the fact that Dokdo is under Korean control currently. So Korea has no claim on Dokdo. It is already under Korea's control. Like Oyo said, we cannot claim that Hawaii is owned by the U.S because it is already U.S territory! Good friend100 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's not a correct usage of the word "claim". To say that Korea has no claim on Dokdo is the same as saying they've got no right to it. And to say that Hawaii is owned by the US is the same as claiming it. Rōnin 05:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Currently Dokdo is under South Korean control. 2. Dokdo is the most common english name for the islets. I think those two reasons are enough to entitle this article dokdo. if you want to call this islets the weird liancourt rocks, you should call senkaku "pinnacle". that's what the vote was about. If you want liancourt, then you should have reasonable claim why this article should be liancourt and the pinnacle article should be senkaku, not pinnacle. Janviermichelle 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What I hate about some Wikipedians here is their tone of speech. "Korea claimed Dokdo long ago and it is already part of Korean territory. Japan is merely claiming it today."
Let me correct this statement. "Korea owned Dokdo long ago and it is already part of Korean territory. Japan is merely claiming it today. "
I think that the situation describing the conflict over this island should sound something like, "The Argentinians are claiming the entire Antarctica" or something really ridiculous.
It is. Just because Japan ruled over Korea during 1910~1940s doesn't mean that there can be any discrepancy or ambiguity over the ownership at all. It's ridiculous . (Wikimachine 04:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

All right! Stop arguing! The last consensus showed that we all voted for Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. Whether Japan claim the Liancourt Rocks or not, it is now under South Korean control and from the South Korean to the Japanese mood South Koreans have a stronger historical influence on Dokdo than the Japanese; South Koreans feel more strongly for Dokdo than the Japanese, of which a few agree that Dokdo should go undisputed to Korea. Let's hope that Liancourt Rocks would be recognised as an undisputed territory of either nation someday.

Still, we aren't politicians, and we are in little position to say anything. Let's hope for the best, don't you? Give your fullest support to the government of your choice, and hope for the best for Liancourt/Dokdo. This goes to me too. Cheers! Mr Tan 05:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, please take time out to cool down your feelings. I think that we don't attempt to come to a conclusion about the political problem　between Japan and Korean here. We should keep the editorial policy of Wikipedia and build consensus in wikipedians which join in above discusstions.Reito-maguro 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Rule of reality

The following passage from Wikipedia:Naming conflict may be relevant here:

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. ...
Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.
Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.
In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.
In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

Sekicho 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is very interesting. I agree with your opinion. I also think that the use of the title of "Dokdo" or "Senkaku" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. But the difficult point is that the subject-change is expected to affect the dispute. For example, if the name of "Dokdo" is decided, Korean may insist that their claim about the islands is justified by Wikipedia. That is, the change of the subject may be used for shaping international opinion. In fact, in this note someone cite use of the label of "Dokdo" in some maps as the evidence of common-use of "Dokdo". Similar thing is expected to be possible about Japanese and "Senkaku". I want to obey your opinion, but I worry such situations. Of course, my worry may not be related to the determination of the subject, but I wrote this story because I want you to know background of a flood of single-side opinion base on point of Japanese view in this vote. I can not support such a single-side opinion, but I can understand their worry. Reito-maguro 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think so, too. Therefore, you should write by "Liancourt Rocks" of an English name impartially. It is not Korean name "Dokdo" or Japanese name "Takeshima", either. Something to say is in each other.--Celldea 23:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this supports dokdo and senkaku. Janviermichelle 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The current state of the vote

There's been some complaints that users weren't properly notified of the vote and thus weren't able to vote. The vote was also closed without an actual deadline being announced, at least on this page. The vast amount of Oppose votes coming in are also obviously fake to such an extent that it would be hard to spot an actual vote in there if there were one.

Would it be an idea to have another vote, announced far in advance, with a set deadline, and with a clear limit on how new a user could be to participate, or are we now satified with the consensus of the last vote? I can't help but share the sentiment that it might have been unfair, though it does seem unlikely, seeing as all those who happened to vote initially agreed with the move. Rōnin 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ronin. Someone has vandalized the vote and I think we need to redo it. Still, I cannot believe that there are so many people who didn't know about the vote and how they are so angry about the article name of Dokdo. Good friend100 23:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is very simple thing. Because, This island is disput over territorial rights between South Korea and Japan. As South Korea has a insistence, Japan also has a insistence. Therefore, if the Korean name "Dokdo" is used, naturally those who cannot be convinced will appear. In English Wikipedia, we should use "liancourt Rocks" of an English name.--Celldea 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

well, there's been an attempt to sabotage it, but i don't think there's a need for another vote right now. the current discussion on the renaming has been actively going on since this comment by sir edgar on may 16, 2006. with no opposition & plenty of voters, it was moved here on may 27, 2006, 11 days later. this was the state of the survey at the time of the move: [7]. i don't think the results are unfair or ambiguous.

an action was taken with clear consensus after substantive discussion for 11 days. imho, the discussion would be better moved along by more constructive comments, rather than another content-less attendance-taking, which will motivate further childishness while tempers are hot. Appleby 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

the vote that moved article from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo is invalid. it was started by Korean and all ran by Korean. This is an English Wikipedia. -Himawarichan 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

if you're talking about a conspiracy theory, that's an insult to the voters. And I know this is an english wikipedia. there are tons and tons of articles having non-english titles. Janviermichelle 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Was the consensus really started by Koreans only and voted by Koreans only? I have been thinking about why the others have not been informed.
I think that the opposing voters were not part of the discussions we are having now, but were alerted by the fact the name of the article has been changed to Dokdo. I am guessing that Dokdo supporters rejoiced when they came across the article but Takeshima supporters probably read about the changes and quickly entered the consensus (not to mention the vandalizers who just messed the vote). There are several names that have suddenly entered the discussion pages. Good friend100 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Japanese wikipedia

I think all of these vandalisers are coming from japanese wikipedia. follow the link on the left to the japanese wikipedia and you can see why this happens. Also, I don't think the previous vote (not this one) was fair. Here's what I found in japanese takeshima wikipedia talk page. (英語版 means "English edition")

Liancourt RocksからDokdoに移動された後、編集合戦（移動合戦？）が起きていた英語版ページで、記事をどの名称のページに置くかを巡り、投票を行っています。(2005/5/1現在)

投票所はこちら

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liancourt_Rocks#Requested_move
英語版のアカウントをお持ちの方は、ぜひ参加してください。また、アカウントをお持ちでない方も、ぜひこの機会にお作りください。
   (1)Liancourt Rocksに置く　(Support-賛成/Oppose-反対)
   (2)Dokdoに置く　(Support-賛成/Oppose-反対)
   (3)Takeshimaに置く　(Support-賛成/Oppose-反対)
一部の者からは日本人ウィキペディアンに対する個人攻撃的な意見も出ていますが、私たちはそのような品のないことは行わず、粛々と致しましょう。
japanese wikipedia takeshima:talk page

Janviermichelle 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


If that's true, what an ugly representation of the Japanese Wikipedia and Japan in general. I'm amazed by the nastiness in some of the comments, and I can only hope that they really are sock puppets of one person or just a few people. I would hate to think that such a large number of readers of the Japanese Wikipedia would behave in this way. Can you clue me in on what the text above means? --Reuben 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Translation is the following, (I just know 'some' japanese)
Currently (May 1st 2005), there has been an edit war in the English wikipedia article after moving the article from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo, and now they're having a survey.
Vote here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liancourt_Rocks#Requested_move
If you have an english wikipedia account, please vote. If you don't, I encourage you to make one. Janviermichelle 04:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You lost most important last comment!! I will try to translate.
Someone have offensive opinion against japanese wikipedian, but we must not use vulgar language like them.-Kerokerota 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And do none of the Japanese Wikipedians try to stop this abuse? Recruiting Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts to flood a vote is unacceptable, not to mention that it reflects very badly on Japan and the Japanese Wikipedia. --Reuben 05:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If I have time, I will research source of this abuse and attempt to stop it. Reito-maguro 06:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Reito-maguro. I hope Japanese Wikipedia is not the real source. --Reuben 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I attempted to contact the poeple which yields a massive amount of "opposit" votes, but I failed. I will continue the attempt so that the votes will not be repeated again. From my research so fer, Japanese Wikipedia is not source of the votes. Reito-maguro 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see the date of "2005/5/1". It is written in the last year. It is not the announce only of the previous vote and is not related to the present vote. In addtion, it does not even recommend sabotage against the previous vote. It is ordinary announce. Reito-maguro 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know that. I just wanted to know where these users came from. Janviermichelle 06:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Its easy question. The people who made '"Liancourt" to "Dokdo"'without sufficiently discuss called people together here around the world. 'Dokdo' is not a Englsh word.Bright888 07:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Now, if there are so many users who made opposition to the name of Dokdo' to Liancourt Rocks, may I ask why none of these opposition members stepped foward earlier? It is certainly to throw your rocks at the closed door now. The voting season was only held in this month, and why didn't any opposition stepped foward during that season? Such attitude is certainly unfair and audacious. I am sure that at least a large minority wouldn't like the name Dokdo. Opposition members may also refer to Senkaku islands, by the way. Mr Tan 08:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan You are quite misunderstandig the nameing of places.

  • 1.The naming of places have pure historical aspect. So if the name of a place has Japanese origin, and if the name is supported by English speaking people especially form Japan,from only that point of view, we can't say it is unfare. (see. NewYork and So on).
  • 2 This Wikipedia is English one, so the title of places should be used which usually used in Englsh sentences. Especally in newspapers and the papers of International organizations.　　　　　

See Wikipedia Naming places theory. Name of each places is decided owing to its historical facts.Bright888 16:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The name Dokdo has been published in much of the English press, and it is being accepted as an English word, romanized from Korean. Just as the word Beijing, it is also known less commonly as Peking (Wade Giles romanization). These two names are commonly used in its romanized forms in English. How can you said that they are being unaccepted in the English sphere, just because they are of foreign origin? There are a thousand and one names of places which are non-English in origin. Yes, Dokdo is an English word, since it has been accepted in the English media. Type the word DOKDO and you can find that they are mentioned everywhere, as with Liancourt and Takeshima.

The problem is now with the naming of the article, not with the origin of the name Dokdo or Takeshima. As I have said, there was a voting session to vote the name of your choice this month, but you and those of the same boat were not interested to vote then. How can you perpetually open and close the door in such a short while? It's ceryainly audacious! If you came too late for the voting session, just too bad! Wikipedia require all members to be pro-active. We invited everybody from all walks to vote, but just that tjose of your side don't want to vote or were dreaming. Mr Tan 16:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have never seen 'dokdo' is used in Englsh papers for first not for in other words. Englsh Wikipeda is for Englsh Users. Your violations are out of my imagination. It is the reason of my opposition was late.Bright888 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


We have informed everybody, all open to any English-speaking wikipedians to choose their name for their article on Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks. Sadly, it is not that the organizers who don't want to invite, but rather the opposition parties were not interested or deliberately wanted to stir up trouble after the open-house discussion. The discussion was on for a few days, and it not our fault for those who don't want to attend. We never said that it is not a Korean-based nor is it a closed one. There are non-Koreans who even participated in the discussion, say User:Ronin and me myself. Mr Tan 08:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rōnin :) Rōnin 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)*Oppose Equating Liancourt Rocks to a country specific name such as Dokdo should only be done when it is the absolute equal term and no contention. Since it is the South Korean government refusing to settle at the international court, most likely Korean claim is weaker than the Japanese claim.210.253.238.119 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose 反対のコメント 218.121.104.156 15:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)」←

  • I want to pinpoint a reason, why South Korea is reluctant to bring the matter to the International Court of Justice. One of its judges, Hisashi Owada is an In-law of the Japanese royal family. I believe the South Korean government is well aware of that, and with Owada, a Japanese, on the ICJ, the South Korean government would tend to be less inclined to accept its ICJ judgement because of Japanese royal-family backing, whereas Koreans does not even have a single representative judge on the ICJ to back it, and without Korean backing Owada would influence the thinking of the other judges, which would be biased, because his ethnicity would more or less influence his thinking, plus the royal family support (I believe that they would support Japan's claim strongly). However, such statements can't be issued by politicians, or they would be sued for defamation of the ICJ.

And I must also pinpoint that the South Koreans are very highly sensitive towards Dokdo, much more than the Japanese. I believe that the South Korean government also wanted to soothe their hearts before taking the giant leap in the possible future. For now, even I would believe that it is certainly very unfair to submit my petition to the ICJ as there is the Japanese royal backing and he would tend to be inclined towards the Japanese claim. Mr Tan 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Tan. Why do you think Japanese are not sensitive about the islands?. Five fishrmen were killed by Korean goverment when they captured it in 1950. Your emotional decisions are seen highly unfair.Bright888 16:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. Tan...that is a very interesting fact. I didn't know the true reason why Koreans didn't want to go to the ICJ.

To Bright888...hello Bright, I think you have your claims wrong. I'm pretty sure Koreans didn't kidnap 5 Japanese fishermen and murdered them. Japanese soldiers have been killed by Koreans. During the early 1950s, after Korean President Rhee designated the "Rhee Line" he declared that Japanese people must not enter Dokdo or Ulleungdo. However, when Japanese boats approached Dokdo, Korean guards ordered them to leave. When the Japanese didn't leave, Korean soldiers shot mortars and sunk a ship. Also there were several gunfights over the years. If you think Koreans killed Japanese people for no reason then thats wrong. Read the internet. There are hundreds of sources. 75.7.131.145 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mr 75.7.131.145. Where did you learn your strange knowledges. Or you have a intetion to tell a lie? In 1950 Japan has no navy. Japanese Navy was dissolved in 1945. And It was not rebuilded until 1954. And some of the fisher Men who killed by Korean goverment were dead in Korean detention house,so international organization verified the house of ill-treatments and it was recorded. [[[8]]]Bright888 16:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr 75.7.131.145. I want to read the source of your strange knowledges. If you have it true. Please show me the Addresses of your "hundreds of sources".Bright888 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying that 75.7.131.145 is Good friend100...I forgot to log in. Ok maybe I exaggerated about the claims. I'm sorry about that. I know that President Rhee declared the Rhee Line and forbade Japanese fishermen from going to Dokdo or Ulleungdo. But, the Japanese approached the islets and the Koreans fired upon them to make them retreat. Even if Japan had no navy, Japan should have recognized the Rhee Line and forbid any Japanese citizens from going to Dokdo without formal permission. Good friend100 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that to tell fishermen who were killed by Korean Goverment were soldiers is beyond the exaggeration. It is a simple lie. And if you knew it was not the fact, you should apologize to tell a lie, not to tell a exaggereation. Bright888 22:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then.. Im sorry if I offended anyone here... yes ok I just read an article on the internet that they were fishermen not soldiers sorry about that.. but anyways, about the Japanese fishermen that were killed by the Koreans..Japanese people have been trying to sail to Dokdo several times without formal permission from the Korean government since the Chosun dynasty (see the Ahn Yong-bok incident).

What the point is, the Japanese did not get any permission from the Korean government and sailed to Dokdo while clearly knowing that it is not their territory! It was Japan's responsibility to recognize Korea's government and Korea as a country. Japan lost WWII in 1945, by 1953 they should have recognized the Korean government by then. The deaths of the Japanese fishermen are of course not very good news, but it is not Korea's fault that they were killed by the Korean police on Dokdo. Japan failed to recognize the Rhee line. Isn't it the government's responsibility to protect and be good to its own citizens? Good friend100 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Common name

Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names, the most common use of a name takes precedence over the official name of the self-identifying entity. The argument 'the name should be Dokdo because the islets are under Korean contorl and it is the officail name used by the Korean government' does not stand. What we should do is to determine the most common name objectively.

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification of common names using external references provides several methods.

  1. The Google test: The result of Google search is filled with pages about the dispute, the Korean name has various spellings, the Japanese name is ambiguous as there is people named Takeshima. It is impossible to determin the single common name.
  2. International organisations. United Nations Cartographic Section has a document titled List of Territories (updated September 2004). In it, there is "Liancourt Rock" described as "Sovereignity Unsettled". Note: there are some papers on un.org made by Korean or Japanese goverments which uses their local name.
  3. Major English-language media outlets. I have checked BBC and CNN. Both used Japanese and Korean name equally, with phrases such as 'called Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in Korean, also known as Liancourt rocks' e.g. Seoul and Tokyo hold island talks. There is no sigle common name.
  4. Reference works. Columbia Encyclopedia has an article Liancourt Rocks. Encarta has Map of Liancourt Rocks (disputed), Asia. Britanica does not have an artile for it but in Korea, Republic of mentions "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)". I conclude 'Liancourt Rocks' is the common name among reference works.
  5. Geographic name servers. the NGIA GNS server regerds Liancourt Rocks as BGN Standard and Japanese and Korean names as variants.

With the above result, I suggest this article be placed Liancourt Rocks as common and neutral name. --Kusunose 09:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i think you have demonstrated that there is no established english name. in the archives, i tried to do a careful google test, showing the korean romanization is significantly more common in english than japanese romanization when mentioned with "islet" "islets" "island", which is not surprising since korea claims a longer ancient history and has administered it for the last half a century, built a bunch of stuff, has police & residents & tourism going on & so has more to say about it.
google is admittedly a crude tool, but it does also indicate that liancourt rocks is far less common than either romanization, & not an established english name. so in that case, i think the pre-move discussion concluded that wikipedia policy and practice is to use the romanization from the controlling state (e.g. Senkaku Islands). if you'd like to change this policy and practice, please feel free to comment at Talk:Senkaku Islands, where an active discussion is going on now. Appleby 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreement on April 25, 2005

Dokdo moved to Liancourt Rocks by the vote on April 25, 2005. [9]　

Sir Edgar requested to the name problem of Senkaku Islands and requested the change in the name of Liancourt Rocks.
Senkaku Islands and Liancourt Rocks have a quite different background. This request was supported by users who edited the article on Korea.
The mutual agreement of Liancourt Rocks contributed to a peaceful edit.
Why does Sir Edgar relate Liancourt Rocks to the name problem of Senkaku Islands? --Kamosuke 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the structure of this vote was very poor. It should have been a single vote, asking editors of both articles for their opinion on which convention is better. Disputing the Senkaku name and simultaneously using it as a justification for the Dokdo name was a bad idea. Maybe we should hold one unified vote, sock puppet-free? - Sekicho 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Reito-Maguro has asked the same question, I'm going to provide my response at the bottom of the page. I do this partly because this discussion page is becoming difficult to monitor as comments are placed here and there.--Sir Edgar 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

what the hey

just a reminder for newcomers to this page who must be wondering what's going on, i think my previous comment got lost somewhere in edit history:

a rational discussion on the renaming had been active on this page since this comment by sir edgar on may 16, 2006. with no opposition & plenty of legitimate voters, it was moved here on may 27, 2006, 11 days later. this was the state of the survey at the time of the move: [10]. i don't think the results are unfair or ambiguous. an action was taken with clear consensus after substantive discussion for a sufficient period. i've requested checkuser for some of the series of vandals/sockpuppets, but i think we'll just have to wait for them to find something better to do. Appleby 00:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Appleby, shall we stop discussions until we can believe an end of subversive act?

I endorse the move of this page to Dokdo based on my tally of votes (including late voters): 15 "support", 9 "oppose", and 1 "neutral". That's 62.5%, and enough for Wikipedia:Consensus. I have specifically omitted "newcomers" who appeared to be Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts at the time of voting. This voting was advertised in Wikipedia:Requested moves by Appleby on 05:37, 23 May 2006, as well as in Wikipedia:Current surveys by Endroit on 06:19, 23 May 2006. If you are a new user wishing to contribute to Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and contribute to other articles. Please do not vote here any more.--Endroit 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, endroit. as of 20:24, May 27, 2006, (which is 11 days after discussion began, just after the move & just before the attack of the zombies), the result was 100% support. total was 14 explicit support votes; User:Tortfeasor's comments seem to indicate support, but i don't see an explicit vote, & 2 other users commented neutrally without voting, nobody opposed the move. Appleby 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please understand where consensus is actually at (62.5%). This clarification is necessary because my count differs from Appleby's. Others are welcome to view this edit history: diff 00:18, 23 May 2006 - 12:54, 31 May 2006 (the duration of the vote including late voters). Users who "supported" were: Sir Edgar, Janviermichelle, Appleby, Deiaemeth, Mr Tan, Sekicho, Good friend100, Sydneyphoenix, Rōnin, AKADriver, Nihonjoe, Zonath, Wikimachine, Gurch, and Jh.daniell. Users who "opposed" were: Visviva, Hermeneus, Kusunose, AjaxSmack, Bright888, Ypacarai, Kamosuke, Nachi, Mochi. Users who're "neutral" were: Endroit. (These users were NOT Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts at the time of voting.) So that's 15-9-1 by my count, or 62.5% in favor of Dokdo.--Endroit 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i understand, that's the count after the poll & the move. i'm sure if anyone who supported the move saw the talk page, they probably didn't feel the need to leave a support vote, since a consensus was established & effected already. so the post-facto percentage may not be meaningful, but the comments are there for the record. Appleby 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is only 37.5% support for "Liancourt Rocks" in terms of consensus (after the move, by my count). Any attempt to do another vote or challenge the results are ill advised at this point (not recommended).--Endroit 19:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification- There were 14 Support votes and 0 Oppose votes. That's 100% votes in favor of a move. The other votes were either late, not properly input, or from sock puppet accounts.--Sir Edgar 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Have you considered, Sir Edgar, that Japanese people haven't been editing this article (as evidenced by its lack of Japanese sources), and that therefore they wouldn't know a move was pending until it actually took place? - Sekicho 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edger, The "oppose 0 votes" you claimed means that the vote was ended before wikipedians having other opinions know. The wikipedians fundamentally have voting right except for puppet accounts. Do you justify the exclusion of them by above your claim? Do you ommit such opinions?Reito-maguro 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinforcement

As I have said, wikipedia is a place for people who are pro-active. There is no need for one to be "informed", for doing so it would take up a lot of time unless a robot is used, which is a certainly useless and lame move. People who are truly interested in a certain topic and want to vote should get himself updated, and catch the right time ti do it and not make a big hoo-haa about it when it is over. There is no one to blame if one is too late for the poll. If they are late, just too bad. Rules were set before the polls, and it is their very own fault if they don't want to turn up and get self-informed earlier. If everybody is to make their own modifications in accordance to their own interests, this would bring very adverse effects to wikipedia. If it's over, just use other ways of solving the problem and not breaking the declaration of the fixed rule.

And also, for wikipedia to work, some discipline on the rules is needed and no rowdiness. There is certainly no point on waking up people who are not pro-active, which is an important factor to become a good wikipedian. Mr Tan 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Tan, Please show me the source that the behind wikipedians are stripped of their voting right by the pro-active rule. Best regards.Reito-maguro 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I never said that only certain people can vote. Rather, what I am reinforcing is that people should vote at the right moment, and at the right time, which means that any people of any opinion can vote. Being pro-active means that you have to be self-motivated to work on wikipedia, which means that you have to volunteer yourself, which is the guiding principle of wikipedia. If you missed the right moment of voting, that's it. We are counting on people on the right time to vote on a fixed time--this is to reinforce law and order. Punctuality through self-motivation to do something. Do you force yourself into meeting the boss in the office, when it is closed after closing time? Security guards would stop you and so is the locked door. This real-life principle also applies to wikipedia.

But voting is secondary to wikipedia--the prime concern is that our aim is to contribute actively to wikipedia. And that is what I mean by pro-activeness. Mr Tan 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Tan At first, I has no problem about the only end. However the present end is very very fast so that the opponents could not know, all of them can not have the pro-activity mentioned you. If it is justified, many of wikipedian, who provide good contribution articles, become behind. Do you mean this?
Next, I think that the making concensus before the poll is besically important, because the purpose of the poll is not defined meaningfully. The definision needs "opponents" because the check of the definision of the poll. However there is no opponents. I wonder why you exclude opponents, although the defenition which means "consensus" needs opponents. What you should do is not exclusion of opponents but negosiation against opponents. For my see, I can not find solution against problem points of this move suggested by opponents in your commnets. I think that you only excuse yourself. Such excuse is not solution of the problem of the move or the poll. Please consider my opinion. Reito-maguro 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Tan. Only the active users of Wikipedia who have been part of the discussion for some time should vote, not just web surfers on the internet who came across the article and decided to vandalize the poll. Reito-maguro...you said that "the present end is very very fast so that the opponents could not know" but the Japanese side of the vote should have voted. It is their fault that they are not being pro active and up to date on the poll. The poll is for the current users! The poll is not for web surfers that just read articles and are not part of the discussion. Good friend100 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What the?

I wish I had seen this discussion earlier. It wasn't brought to my attention until appleby edited the Sea of Japan article. I must say that i STRONGLY oppose the name change to Dokdo for this article. Why? because this is the English section of Wikipedia, not the korean or the japanese or the international section. One user wrote that since Korea owns the rocks, then it should be called Dokdo in Wikipedia. Well, i don't give a flying sh*t who owns those rocks, wikipedia is all about NPOV and by calling these rocks by anything other than the neutral English name is POV. Same with the pinnacle islands. It is highly Korean pov to call those rocks dokdo and it is highly japanese pov to call them Takeshima. Also, wikipedia is not a democracy and you can not vote in a pov name just because there are enough people that hold that pov who edit wikipedia. A neutral, ENGLISH name must be used for all articles. Masterhatch 19:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i think your comments are more relevant to Talk:Senkaku Islands, which was the catalyst for the renaming discussion here. if that article applies your proposed principle, i'm sure most people will have no problem renaming this article to be consistent. Appleby 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made my opinion quite clear there. Thanks appleby Masterhatch 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
And who gets to decide what constitutes a neutral English name? "Liancourt Rocks" is a direct translation of a French name. Rōnin 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. It is not for us to decide. It has already been decided. Have a look at some encyclopaedias and the CIA fact site. True it derives from the french, but so are so many English words, such as "beautiful". Very few English words derive from either Korean or Japanese. I can think of taekwondo and tsunami off hand, but there aren't many. Liancourt Rocks is the perfect neutral name because if favours neither Korea nor Japan. Since this is the English section of wikipedia, we should be using the English names. This is not a battle ground between the japanese and Koreans. Let them battle elsewhere and let wikipedia remain neutral. Masterhatch 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the CIA website describes the current situation of the problem more and more like what Japanese would want to take the problem with. Japan allegedly is lobbying hard to influence the contents. So please don't be too dependent on the CIA website. Liancourt Rocks is beneficial to Japan, and nothing good to Korea. Is the name still neutral? Furthremore, more importantly, Liancourt Rocks has been rarely used until recently, as Quelpart for Cheju island and Hamilton for Keo-je island. It's kind of an insult for Korean. I think Dokto is more appropriate for the title. ginnre 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


done and done. most publications describe the islets as "dokdo in korean and takeshima in japanese" or "takeshima in japanese and dokdo in korean"; "liancourt rocks" is very rare, & cia is the exception, not the rule. where there is no common english name (although dokdo is more common than takeshima), the consistent wikipedia practice is to use the name used by the controlling party. wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting obscure french names for korean or japanese territories. we can change the wikipedia practice, but this page shouldn't be the sacrifical exception until a new naming convention is neutrally applied. to begin the change in naming conventions, please continue the discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands. thanks.Appleby 23:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

do you really think Dokdo is more common than Takeshima? There are 120 million people call Takeshima on Earth at least , but how about Dokdo? there are ONLY 40 million people call Dokdo. and Appleby, the dispute of the Senkaku islands are not related to Korea. Don't be meddlesome. -- Himawarichan 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands" are not neutral names. They are the names given by the governing authority and more commonly used than "Liancourt Rocks" or "Pinnacle Islands". The previous situation having "Liancourt Rocks" and "Senkaku Islands" was not only unfair, but an inconsistent application of this supposed search for neutrality. Now both articles are equally biased and have more commonly used names.--Sir Edgar 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer Himawarichan...hello, about your statement that Takeshima is more common name than Dokdo...literally you are correct, there are definitely more Japanese people than Koreans! But, we are talking about foreigners too! This is the second time I am saying this. Just because there is a bigger population doesn't nesscerily mean that the word "Takeshima" is more common. Good friend100 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

First of all, about the vote, I do hope that the vandalizers were not from Japanese Wikipedia. It just makes a bad impression. I also agree that another consensus should be taken again (this time with a notice and ending date).

Anyways, i would like to clarify something. I keep reading other peoples discussions that this is the English Wikipedia and therefore it should be "Liancourt Rocks" since "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" are not English words.

Yes you are correct but peoples! The internet is an international thing. There are thousands of networks all across the earth. Just because it is English Wikipedia doesn't mean that everything should be contained to just English words. For example, Sushi is a Japanese word but we use it and it is part of our vocabulary! There are hundreds of European and Asian words that we use as part of English. Many Spanish words are very similar to English words too.

Also, English is becoming a global language! There are many articles in the English Wikipedia because more and more people are learning English and speaking it. We don't have to argue about it. Good friend100

I disagree. I don't think it's time for another vote. It appears that there is mobilization from Japanese Wikipedia, though mostly from sock puppet accounts, which would unbalance things inappropriately. I noticed the inconsistency of application of NPOV while reading the Senkaku Islands article and put up the request for a move of "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo". People who regularly visit the site, monitor this page, and vote on these things did. As mentioned by Tortfeasor, anyone "worth their salt" would have spoken up within the given time frame (and there were many people who edited the article, but did not vote). Standard procedures were followed. Even counting opinions given after the vote, including sock puppet accounts, would still give a majority to in favor of the move. So, unless there is valid, overwhelming evidence that shows we should consider changing it back, there is no reason for another vote.--Sir Edgar 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for everyone's info, I am rather confident that the massive posting did not come from the Japanese Wikipedia. The current discussion and the result of the vote was posted on a discussion board in 2channel on the 29th, and following this discussion board it seems that some people had little clue about the way Wikipedia is edited but were voting anyway. Things have calmed down (I think), and people have started to realize the best way would be to contribute, create articles, participate, etc., in English. For my part, I would strongly encourage those people to continue in this much more positive approach. Massive posting with sometimes strong wording achieve very little. Other conclusion is : the majority were probably not sock puppets, but a bunch of first time users coming from that board.Tensaibuta 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If this article title change results in more Wikipedians joining who will actively contribute to improving articles here, then I think that would be most welcome and a positive result of this debate. I do not, however, wish to see inanane comments, cursing, childish behavior, and solely politically-motivated statements coming from ni channeru members. The amount of anti-Chinese, anti-Korean, racist, and ultra-nationalistic posting going on there is not to be underestimated. New people joining should only make responsible posts using level-headed reasoning with facts. Anyhow, I hope we can see many more new Wikipedians joining who will contribute positively to all articles.--Sir Edgar 05:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, 2channel is pretty anarchic. Everyone in Japan uses it, basically. If you can think of all the crazy users on Wikipedia, then multiply them by ten or a hundred and let them all post anonymously, you can get a picture of what it's like over there. All I can say is... 2chは反省しる! But, Sir Edgar, I still object to how this was structured. I personally voted for Dokdo based on your Senkaku reasoning. Asking for a vote on Senkaku at the same time was bad structuring, and if I had to write the policy from scratch I would probably go for neutral naming across the board, since there will never be peace so long as non-neutral names are used. - Sekicho 10:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir Edger, I am sorry for offensive behavior of some 2-channelers (we call the people use 2ch board　in Japanese). Their such behavior is orginated by no experience of a discussion. The education in Japan does not take such experience into account. Perhaps Japanease beginners lacking experience of a discussion join in edition of wikipedia in future. Their behavior contains a similar aspect. (My behavior also may include such an aspect.) But they, however, are candidates of good Wikipedian. I hope this bad occurrence will not cause you exclude them.
I unfortunately do not have a discussion with you in this note until now. I have a asking about your reasoning. You pointed out the inconsistency between "Dokdo & Senkaku" or "Liancourt & Pinnacle". Why did you select "Dokdo & Senkaku"? Surely, the inconsistency is resonable. In your comments I can not confirm the reason, "wider usage", which you decide the final choice. I want to understand the result of this vote reasonably. Reito-maguro 12:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I am trying to discuss about the statement "Because this is English Wikipedia, all names should be in English." There are several Wikpedians that believe that English Wikipedia should have only English named articles. I disagree with this because I already stated it above, that because the internet is an international thing, any words can still apply to the English Wikipedia. The world is really small now. I wrote above that English is becoming the global language and many people are starting to learn it. I am wondering about other peoples opinions on this. Good friend100 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, it seems there are a few issues brought up that I would like to address. I would like to first point out, however, that I am not the spokesman for the move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo". I simply pointed out that: 1. The use of "Liancourt Rocks" (a supposedly NPOV name) and "Senkaku Islands" (a definitely POV name) is an unequal application of the concept of NPOV at Wikipedia. 2. "Dokdo" is far more commonly used than "Liancourt Rocks". I suggested the move, a poll was conducted, people voted for a move, and it was moved (not by me).
Anyhow, on to the issues:
1. "Why do you select Dokdo and Senkaku?" The situation is very similar between the two and yet there are disparities. They are both disputed territories. Yet, only one is given a "neutral" (and I differentiate "neutral" from "NPOV" here) name and the other is not. South Korea controls Dokdo and Japan controls Senkaku, but the former is called "Liancourt Rocks", while the latter is called "Senkaku". Why? There must be consistent application of NPOV or none at all. Thus, it must be either "Dokdo" and "Senkaku" or "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands".
Amazing! : ) (Wikimachine 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
I am also amazed that you still maintain the consistency thoeory after being presented with the West Bank case. You have already admitted that you can apply different standards (or should I say double standard?) depending on what is the common English name.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
2. "You should not have tied Dokdo and Senkaku together." That was not my intention, but I want to ask, "Why not?" Consistency is of utmost importance at Wikipedia. There was not an equal application of NPOV here. This has now been fixed. Is "Dokdo" truly NPOV? No, but neither is "Senkaku". They're both POV, just like "Sea of Japan", "Persian Gulf", "Native Americans", and "Linux".
You will make a great debater. (Wikimachine 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
Our rule says "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. We should have discussed this and built a consensus before we started the survey.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
3. "Dokdo is POV. We should use Liancourt Rocks which is neutral." You're right "Dokdo" is the POV name of its governing authority, South Korea, and the more widely used name. And "Senkaku Islands" is the POV name of its governing authority, Japan, and its ally, the United States, and the more widely used name. "Sea of Japan" is also POV and the more widely used name. If we were to be truly neutral, we would call it something entirely different.
IQ= 225 (Wikimachine 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
There are, of course, different opinions as to what is the "more widely used name." That is why we had to had the survey.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. "Dokdo is not an English name. This is English Wikipedia." Incorrect. "Dokdo" is an English name, just like "Senkaku" (or "sushi" or "kofun" or "Jeju-do" or "bibimbab").
True Wikipedian (Wikimachine 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
5. "I didn't get the opportunity to vote." Yes, you did. As far as I know, all Wikipedia rules were observed. There was a proposal to move the article to "Dokdo" on May 16. A week later, a poll was started and it was announced in Wikipedia moves. People who regularly visit or monitor this article or who happened to stop by (in other words "normal" Wikipedians) voted in the poll. There was no mobilization or exclusion of voters. All votes were counted. The result was 14 Support and 0 Oppose, 100% consensus to move to the article to "Dokdo".
Cerebral and concise! (Wikimachine 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
I must point out that there were not much discussions on the matter before the survey started, and the discussions were still moving when the survey was closed. So, I would say that you had plenty of time if you had pre-determined conclusion, but I had no chance to vote as I had to follow the discussions.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. "The poll was not conducted properly. I didn't get to vote. Let's vote again." The poll was conducted properly to the best of my ability and others. Everybody was given the opportunity to vote. There were even comments about why there weren't more "Japanese" Wikipedians voting. The poll closed in five days, as prescribed by Wikipedia rules. If we were to allow elections to go beyond their deadline, then Al Gore would have probably beat George W. Bush in 2000. Then again, supporters of Bush would keep voting until they got their way and then Gore's supporters would turn out more to swing back the vote again. We would never have a conclusive result without a deadline. With the mobilization of Japanese Wikipedians and rumours that ni channeru is coming, an "unnatural" imbalance is inevitable. Thus, I am 100% opposed to another vote at this time.
I would not say "I didn't get to vote. Let's vote again." We should have another vote if it serves the purpose of makeing better encyclopedia. If it doesn't, no need for another vote.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is a overwhelming evidence or convincing logic that the article should be moved again, the move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" stands (for now).--Sir Edgar 00:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! But for the sake of future reference, I should be grateful if you could explain what "overwhelming evidence or convincing logic" you had when you called the last vote. Thanks.--Dwy 15:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reito-maguro, I think it would be great if we have new Japanese Wikipedians joining in the discussion and helping to the improvement of all articles here at Wikipedia. However, I do not think that people simply coming to vote are contributing to the discussion. Opinions are important, but we want to see the reasoning behind the opinion. Simple statements like "Takeshima is Japanese and Koreans are dirtying it." or "This is unfair. Island's name is Takeshima." are not helpful. This is especially the case when such comments are coming from participants who are unsigned, unregistered, or newly-registered for the sole reason of voting in a poll that ended a week ago.--Sir Edgar 01:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply, Sir Edger. At first I emphasize that I do not share opinions of the puppet votes. For example I think the subject of "Dokdo" is NPOV as I mentioned above. I do not deny all of your statements. Until now I unfortunatly have never express my opinion clearly because of chaos on this note. I snowed under negotiating to the puppet voters and to voters based on a certain POV. So I would like to express my opinion for a discussion with you.
First, My reasoning for "Opposite" (or this poll) is listed as followings,
1. "Is consistency-reasoning suiteable for nameing subjects?"
I consider that a special consistency conflicts with other that because any consistency is defined based on a POV. I, of couase, understand the importance of naming consistency. However such consistency should be based on unique rule in wikipedia. If it is not so, when we meet consistency-problem between various two subjects, I can expect that each result of such results of the polls are not consistent with each other. As a result, it call global inconsistency between the votes. I think that a special consistency reason, "wider use", has not concensus in all wikipedians (In fact there are opponents). Thus I think that the result of the vote becomes a part of such global inconsistency. I worry that situation. Thus I can not supports the consistency-reasoning on a few of subjects. From the same reason I can not supports the exclusion of the opinions of opponents. No-concensus consistency also call the grobal inconsistency. It is not reasonable.
2. "Does this poll contain a certain political POV?"
I think that your suggestion is political NPOV. However are other voters really so? I seem that some voters suggest unsuitable reasons with "support" or "oppose" votes based on a certain political POV. As you know, many people in the world use this encyclopedia. We take observation of the votes by such many people into account. The article of wikipedia has already very much impact in makeing international concensus. Then there is the threat that articles on wikipedia is used for making international concensus based on a certain political POV. In this poll, reasoning based on a certain political POV is not excluded and we can see them in votes "support" or "oppose". Surely, the purpose of vote originally is based on political NPOV. However, are the votes based on political NPOV? The peresent poll has political aspect because the existence of such political reasons in votes. That is, in the present result, the viewer can interprets that wikipedians admit only special POV politics in a dispute. It is very unsuitable in encyclopedia based on NPOV policy. I guess that the selecting-aspect of a certain political POV calls the puppet votes. I think that you should exclude , by clear definition of reason of the move, such political reasoning based on a certain political POV before this poll. As I can see, you often suffer from Japanese attack on political POV of Japanese. I think that it is sometimes because of your lacking attention as similar to above improperly-using a certain POV for your purpose. I guess that other wikipedian almostly dose not suffer from such Japanese attack. Such attention-less calls chaos of dispute as we can see on this note. The poll has aspect of dispute between certain political POV's, I can not supports the poll based on NPOV policy. When we hold the poll with dispute in future, I recommend that we exclude, by enough discussion, such reasoning based on a certain political POV before the poll.
Next, as shown in my opinion, I don't deny your all of reasoning. My opinion conflicts with your one in the following points.
1. 'Problem related to a special consistency between two subjects'
Please clarify the "problem". Did you understand my line of reasoning? I tried to explain in this section earlier.--Sir Edgar 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is the line you said? I find you suggestion,
" I suggested the articles be entitled, respectively:
1. "Liancourt Rocks" and "Pinnacle Islands"; or
2. "Dokdo" and "Senkaku Islands" "
My comment is related to this suggestion. Its ditail is in below.Reito-maguro 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I attempt to concretely explain my problems.
According to 1, For example, the polls were held in both "Dokdo" and "Senkaku islands". If "Dokdo" and "Pinnacle" in the polls were selected, the consistency suggested by you would be broken. Even so the results must be accepted. I pointed out such the possibility of the inconsistency between results and the reasoning in the above statement, 1.
Because of such inconsistency, these polls are mismatch with the reasoning of keeping consistency. In fact, the polls originally are held for asking only whether "governing power" or "English name". The original reasoning was kept to be hidden by "inconsistency", but the polls were started. The inconsistency is mismatch with the polls and is much misleading for voters. This is not enoughly discussed before the polls. As a results many voters misunderstand that keeping of consistency is the reasoning of the polls.
Isn't the misleading-reasoning poll a problem?
The result of a poll with improper problem establishment is not meaningful. I think this torsion between the polls and their reasoning should be solved in this clarification.Reito-maguro 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


2. 'Your exclusion of opponent opinions, which conflicts with making concensus'
I did not exclude any opinions. They all remain recorded above. However, I only counted votes that came within the deadline, according to Wikipedia rules. All polls must have an ending date.--Sir Edgar 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


2. The votes are associated by comments. The comments are just opinions. You counted only "support" votes. This behavior does not denied the interpretation that you excluded only the opinions of the opponents. Even if it was carried out for saving a rule, though many wikipedians pointed out not-making-consensus, you rejected all concession. This is improper behavior for making-consensus. I expect that such behavior calls troubles, between satisfied and unsatisfied people, which are basically avoidable by making consensus. In fact, unfortunately, such troubles, for example, edit wars, forced re-vote and so on, are realized as you can find.
This is just problem, i.e., call of troubles which basically are avoidable.
Should we make concession as possible in order to avoid troubles on Wikipedia? I hope your understanding of various people and your adult-payment of attentions for making-consensus. Making-consensus exists for avoiding troubles. It is much important. I believe that it is meaningful for good and fair articles.Reito-maguro 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


3. 'The political aspects of the poll, which conflicts with NPOV policy'
I don't understand what you mean by "political". My goal is primarily consistent application of NPOV.--Sir Edgar 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
3. It is a simple problem. The comments associates votes. In them, no-NPOV reasoning are observed, such as 'Also Dokdo is Korean territory' by Good friend100 or 'Takeshima is the best to me' by Mochi. "political" means such a POV of each country. You counted only the former. In the time, the former was linked with the result of this poll. The count justified the reasoning by Good friend100. The latter was ignored. The uncount denied the reasoning by Mochi. This can be interpreted as wikipedians supported the former and denied the latter.
This "can" is much deep problem. This "can" conflicts with NPOV policy.
Originally the reasoning of the poll is based on NPOV, i.e., consistency. However the result of this poll "can" be interpreted as a certain POV is justified by wikipedia. It is much misleading.
I think that the "can" must be clearly changed to "can not" by some kind of solution.
Can you show a proper solution? I believe existence of a solution which does not conflicts with this move.
I make a effort to clarify my opinion concretely. but, sorry, my writing may be abstract yet. Thank you again.Reito-maguro 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Can you explain solution to vanish my worry? Thank you again for your meaningful opinion.
Not sure if I can help you with that. I don't understand exactly what you would like me to respond to and how I can vanish your worry.--Sir Edgar 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
PS.
I know that you have been slandered by some of Japanese. I can understand your feelings. However, not all of Japansease are offensive. All wikipedian start from a beginner. I expect that they do not know the custom in wikipedia or in the world. I am one of such bigenners. I hope your adultly leading for the beginners if you find improper behavior of them.
I do not means blame for you in below story, I hope your cool reading. I worry that you get infomation only from POV Korean when I see your comment on this note. Korean blame Japanase for cultural difference, political dispute and so on. It is based only on POV by some of Koreans. In fact, I found your above comment, "The amount of anti-Chinese, anti-Korean, racist, and ultra-nationalistic posting going on there is not to be underestimated." . I guess that this hurtful comment for us is based on such Korean doccuments or the childish behavior of som Japanese. Your behavior which refrects your circumstance seems clearly rejecting of understanding Japanese people. I think that we should make understand with each other by a tenacious communication. Please consider my opinion.Reito-maguro 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my poor English. Perhaps many mistakes are remained yet. Reito-maguro 15:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the English. I think your English is quite good actually. You do speak in quite a Japanese way using very polite, but vague comments, which makes it difficult to comprehend what you're trying to say exactly. I guess it's a different form of expression, kinda like what we see between the British and Americans.

Honestly, I am severely disappointed by the lack of manners among the people posting here. Using sock puppet accounts, crude expressions, and empty political statements does not help the discussion at all. I was going to stop commenting on this Talk page and just go start work on UK-related articles because I see the discussion going nowhere but a mob re-vote. And this is by people who don't regularly visit the site and are using less than civilized tactics to do so. But I think your courtesy and reason convinced to me at least respond to your post.

Really, I find it difficult to absorb all of this. The Internet manners of the Japanese who have posted here could be seen by some as atrocious, especially compared to the impeccable manners I've seen in person and how well I've been treated when in Japan. I'm really shocked and yet I've seen it all before.

Reito-maguro, can you help us have a civil discussion based on facts and reason for the creation of the best article possible? Can we do this in an orderly, calm fashion without offensive remarks and rude insinuations?--Sir Edgar 07:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I am glad to obtain your dialog with me. Thank you very much. Of course, I make efforts for a good articles with you. Surely we sometimes make disputes. However I want to do so for understanding with each other. Because I am a common man with mistakes, it is difficult to assure my ordered behavior at any time. If you find such my behavior, please point out it and lead me.
I will consider your comments and will reply as soon as possible. Sorry, please wait.
I also just now find the re-vote. It is sad. Unfortunatly, behavior of Michael is symbol of not-making-consensus of the above poll. If the next poll is existed, I want to make a effort for consensus in order to not make such a symbol. But now we should lead him by persuasions, for a good articles. Thanks.Reito-maguro 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


But of course, you have no problem counting the votes of people who say "Dokdo is Korean and Japan's claims should be ignored." - Sekicho 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sekicho, I counted all the votes until the deadline. Any votes after that were not counted. You know that as well as I do. Even if there were any inane comments, I would not throw them out. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what was said by everyone whose votes were counted.
I really think you should look at what you're saying because I'm honestly hurt that people continue to insinuate that I may have did something wrong. This is not directed specifically at you, but everyone. Anyone who is not happy with the poll results and then starts attacking the individual who took the initiative to do something is, in my book, childish. Up until the end of the poll, everyone seemed fine with the process. Was anyone blocked from voting? Did somebody try to mobilize pro-Dokdo people to vote? No and no. Then all the late Japanese Wikipedians and ni channeru people come in and everyone gets upset. Geez... Give me a break.--Sir Edgar 08:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Mobilizing" people from 2ch does not seem to be an act of good faith. If someone were to "mobilize" Koreans from Korean forums like DC Inside and clash with 2ch people, all hell would break loose on this article and other Korea-Japan conflict articles. That is why I specifically avoid doing such things. Deiaemeth 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Each Wikipedian had each cause to start Wikipedia. And what it was, if he (or she) writes truth, I think that he (or she) is good Wikipedian. I think one thing to destruct the Wikipeda is the conducts to write lies consciously(ex. "to write fishermen to soldiers falsely).Bright888 12:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about VANK("Voluntary" Agency Network of Korea)?Bright888 09:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see VANK here. Anybody see VANK? It look like lots of ni channeru were here and possibly some Japanese Wikipedians, but where are any signs of VANK? The vandalization, flood voting, rude comments, and sock puppet accounts (and new accounts made solely for the purpose of voting in the poll) appear to be primarily Japanese people.--222.233.205.166 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


By the way, I wish that somebody would point to me it was said, "Dokdo is Korean and Japan's claims should be ignored." I just did a search of this page and the only person who used the word "ignore", or any form thereof, is you, Sekicho. You did it three times. So, please be careful about your statements. I would like to ask you to hold an unbiased reasoning with your comments and attitude.

I also searched the word "dirty" and it was used three times by what look like Japanese Wikipedians or ni channeru people, all in reference to Koreans. I think this kind of behavior is appalling. For those of you that don't know, many Japanese call foreigners, especially Koreans, "kitanai" (or dirty).--Sir Edgar 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the word "kitanai"(or dirty) in many homepages in the world when 2002 FIFA World Cup were held and so on. It is natural to say dirty to dirty conducts. The key question is that the conducts were truly dirty or not, not the usages of the word "dirty".Bright888 09:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you are still suffering from a 2002 case of 火病. I wish you speedy recovery.--222.233.205.166 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you still know what Sir Edgar is trying to say he thinks that there are too many pro Japanese people and they are not keeping their manners on Wikipedia. Take a look at the vote and see how it got vandalized! I don't know if the people were from ni channeru or Japanese Wikpedia, or other people, but the Japanese side of this article now just looks bad. ...About VANK, I have never hear about this organization and it is interesting if they are secret supporters for Korea. And also, could someone explain what a "cyber terrorist" is? thanks Good friend100 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "kitanai" relevent to this discussion, I mean, relations between Koreans and Japanese are dirty, and Koreans use just as nasty remarks describing the Japanese. "Kitanai" is nothing new.

Oyo321 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody should be cool down! By the way, I've been thought that I don't want to take ashamed action because here is the international place, but when I removed the article posted by Appleby, I got message of "Don't remove contents" from Deiaemeth, although he or she had never contributed that article. First, I couldn't understand what's mean, But now I understand. There are pro Korean people and sockpuppet here! (Is it already common sense? I'm sorry I did not know it because I was a beginner.) So, It is nonsense that some Korean people blame for 2-chan-nerra as if they do not do a wrong thing. and I say just to make sure, 2-chan-nerra are not pro like VANK. We will work as everybody peacefully as dirty! thanks --TOMATOBOMB 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A bad case of dirty 火病. Haha.
Um...you've got your stuff mixed up. Ni-channeru is just as POV as VANK. By the way, I wouldn't have such a big mouth as you-it was Japanese Wiki that has obviously vandalized this discussion page. You cannot accuse pro-Koreans for slandering without large evidence-I'll accuse you for being pro-Japanese! Thats not fair is it? It's not Korean fault that the Japanese are all fumed over the naming wars. Oyo321 07:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about "pro Koreans"?! Try seeing what happened to the poll and how someone vandalized it against the Korean side of the vote. Also to Oyo...we do not have to talk emotionally this discussion should be kept in a polite tone and a little more positive atmosphere. Good friend100 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we stop altercations not related to the entry name "Clarification"? , such as "2chers are bad!" or "Vank is bad!"Reito-maguro 14:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SOrry if I sound aggresive. Its because I've come across way too many Japanese POV's... Oyo321 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Rusk Documents

This is the official consensus of the US government by Dean Rusk about the Liancourt Rocks. And, this is the only opinion from the outsider's angle. To keep the wikipedia neutral, it is necessary regardless of the content. -- Himawarichan 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it as an interesting reference, but it doesnot need to be part of the article body as Rusk's (or the U.S.'s) opinion has no bearing on the dispute between Korea and Japan. It's completely irrelevant. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Before the San Francisco treaty Korea was not independed form Japan yet. Korea was independed form Japan by the SF treaty. And Korea assert that she indpended with the Rocks. So the interpretation of SF treaty is the Key of its possession. And Korea was not the the countries concerned with the treaty because she didn't exist yet formally. So we can't judge the possesion only from the informations of Japan and Korea. Rusk documents was the important papers to interpret the SF treaty. Bright888 03:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But there are only Japan and Kores's insistences on the article. The outsider's opnion is very important especially in the English Wikipedia. -- Himawarichan 01:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Outsider's opinion is very important especially in all versions of Wikipedia, buddy. (Wikimachine 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
This document is a very important in the interpretation of the SF treay. It is not a document of "Occupation forces" like SCAPIN but it is by the subject of International Law (US government). --Opp 01:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the important documents what intent is showed that the San Francisco treaty was written. You should not erase.Objectman 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan was deprived of oversea territories precisely because the U.S.-led Allied Powers defeated Japan in the Pacific War, and it was the SCAP (Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers) that redrew the national boundaries of post-war Japan and determined the attribution of islands such as the Liancourt rocks and Kuril Islands. Removing the info on the U.S. involvement because "it has no bearing" is ridiculous. Hermeneus (user/talk) 05:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to include this document as a document, but the current edits trying to add it aren't up to par. For one thing, the Rusk letter has been tacked on at the end, totally out of place. For another thing, the text draws POV conclusions instead of just giving info about what the document says. For a third thing, it puts this under a heading that totally loses the context of what Rusk was writing. I'll try to rewrite in a more reasonable and less polemic way. --Reuben 05:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for your edit expecting it. This document is a very important in the interpretation of the SF treay, and title of Takeshima according "Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 32".[11] --Opp 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
All about the Rusk’document is here.[12]--Opp 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Opp, My edit is already done. Please see the Rusk quote where it currently is in the post-WWII section. Let's work together on this. The article can describe relevant facts, including documents and the opinions of different parties. But it shouldn't try to draw conclusions about who is right. Let's work things out on the discussion page, and avoid edit wars. --Reuben 07:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you. But I think that it should describe the fact which Japan is protesting against the activity of South Korea. To avoid the armed clash, International Law admits only peaceful effect control. I think that present descriptions of Economy and Tourism sentences are an advertisement of South Korea's illegal accomplished fact making.--Opp 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain S Korea's illegally accomplished fact making. (Wikimachine 13:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC))
International Law sets the day when the protest was expressed as critical date. The activity to improve a legal position is refused [MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE (ICJ 1953)].--Opp 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest.[SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN (ICJ 2002)]"
Reuben, occupation forces and the air force cannot become subject of International Law. The United States means US government in International Law. Because a legal meaning is different, I think should not coexistence in the same paragraph. What do you think about?--Opp 13:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. --Reuben 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not good at English. I want to say that “The United States maintains a policy of non-recognition for claims by either side” is wrong. Potsdam Declaration and SF treaty legally restrain the US “government”. And the US “government” is a main interested party about SF treaty. US “government” is consistently a standpoint with a Japanese territory since Shebold’s admonition. The “air force” only considered the occupation by South Korea as a manager. South Korean's life was lost by the US military exercise in the past. In International Law, “Air force” cannot law act. The “air force” is not the same as US “government”. And do you notice that this article contradict each other? And, do you notice the treaty not come into effect yet in November, 1951?
“The CIA's Daily Digest of November 30, 1951, said Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951. However, Tokyo raised the issue again two months later in the midst of the Korean War…………. The embassy also said that in signing the peace treaty, Japan gave up its rights over the islets without a doubt, and that the decision was regarded as final.”[13]
If you know about details of the document of CIA in 1951, please teach me about that.--Opp 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, this still doesn't make any sense. --Reuben 00:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Do Not Move

This page was recently the subject of the most ill-judged move in Wikipedia history; I've moved it back to Dokdo and move protected it. (There is a reason why we discuss moves first). HenryFlower 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title to a more appropriate one. I agree, Henry Flower, please don't vandalize. (Wikimachine 13:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

2 Requests

"They were released in 1965, under exchange condition with releasing 472 Korean prisoners who perpetrated crimes in Japan."

I feel that there is a need for a Korean point of view for this statement to make it neutral.

To my knowledge, those Koreans who were accused of doing crimes in Japan were related to Independent Army movement.


Additionally, I don't know how to archive this, but somebody needs to archive this discussion. Thanks. (Wikimachine 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

I previously say that my writing may be not proper reference. From a source in Japanease, the prisoners were planed to be order the deportation of Japan. Thus they would be released by the deportation, without the exchange. In such a case, they are illegal immigrants or overstaying people based on ordinary sense, are't they? In fact the government of Korea made a request of permanent residents of Japan for them. In Japanese documents on www I can not find any accurate reason why they were taken into custody. I can not also find the relation with Independent Army. I have no rational idea why the government of Korea requested permanent residents of Japan for Independent Army.Reito-maguro 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

as hostages?

The article states that a number of fishermen were detained in Korea "as hostages". Do we have factual basis for that, or would it be better to remove the "as hostages" bit? Rōnin 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Takeshima is one of the peculiar territory in Japan. Korean govements have not been appreciated our historical things between Japan and Korea, and also, have strongly pressed their understanding of wrong history to Japan. I would like to tell you once again, Takeshima is a peculiar territory in Japan.saihiro 06:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of textbook did you use in school? saihiro?Oyo321 07:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oyo321, you should not stir up his resentment. Reito-maguro 10:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
saihiro, here we do not discuss what you mentioned. Reito-maguro 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New Page Please

Man this page is overloading way too much. My lagging computer can't keep up. I suggest we put this in the archives. Ken ta987 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Shall I make an archive? Can I bring the articles into the archive 4, from "1 POV" to "18 What the?" where discussions were closed almostly? Reito-maguro 11:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. (Wikimachine 12:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
Up to "18 What the?"? No. --Saintjust 13:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Saintjust, Why? Please let me know your opinion. Reito-maguro 13:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
reito thatd be helpful. Yes. Oyo321 14:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to wait for making consensus in this entry, for the next 2-3 days, because there is a opinion of "No". Thanks. Reito-maguro 16:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This page is way too long. But it must be cut at the point when it is archived.--Sir Edgar 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will move the entries from "1 POV" to "18 What the?" into an archive tomorrow temporary. After we agree on cut regions, I will do additional operates. Thanks.Reito-maguro 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wkiproject Japan

Doesn't the headline of "Wikiproject Japan" mislead to people that this article is trying to improve Japan and make the article into Japanese. Don't we need to put up a "Wikiproject Korea"? I think we need to do something about the Wikiproject Japan title. Good friend100 14:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good friend100, your suggestion is based only on a Korea POV. Such suggestion is not acceptable for many wikipedians. Do you want to call additional chaos on this article? Thanks. Reito-maguro 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Im not trying to make the article Korean POV Im just wondering why the "Wikiproject Japan" is on this article. When I first saw it, it kind of makes it seem like the article is for Japan. Good friend100 17:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that both "Korean portal" and "Japan Wikiproject" are needed. Undirstanding of sights from both sides is meaningful in the discussion of this article. Thanks. Reito-maguro 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem too Korean POV but I agree with you Reito maguro, someone should post the "Korea Portal" at the top of the article page. Good friend100 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification 2

I started a discussion a few days ago but unfortunately, I don't think anybody got the message. Anyways, i have read some users saying that "because this is English Wikipedia the name of the article should be Liancourt Rocks". I don't think this is true becaus first of all the internet is not restricted to only English speaking countries or English speaking people. The internet is an international thing. Also, more people are speaking English and English is becoming a global language. I can't believe some people think that the English Wikipedia is restricted to English users. Good friend100 14:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dou you means that subject of encyclopedia in English can be written in other language? In this poll "Dokdo" was considered as one of names in English. If your suggesion is right, this reason is not meaningful. Reito-maguro 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right, Good friend100. The internet is an international property and must not not restricted to only English speaking people, and also, Korean speaking people. Then, what you want? Should we make an new English name for the Liancourt Rocks? -- Himawarichan 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reito maguro...I'm just trying to clarify that just because it is English Wikipedia, doesn't mean only English articles must be in it. Several users are saying that "just because this is English Wikipedia, we must only use English names so Liancourt Rocks is the proper name" The word Liancourt Rocks is not even English, its French. Also, Im not talking about the poll Im just talking about how people think Dokdo and Takeshima are not English words.

To Himawarichan...I don't think we need to make a new English name, first of all that would be very confusing to neutral observers and also people outside of Wikipedia already call it the Liancourt Rocks. I just want to clarify that "just because this is English Wikipedia, we must only use English names so Liancourt Rocks is the proper name" is not a correct statement. Good friend100 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is only one of proper reasoning. The name is justified by other reasons. For example the name has rich history and is used commonly in English. Only the reason does not restricts other name, but it is needed. It is also said about "Dokdo" or "Takeshima". Reito-maguro 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I think you are getting the wrong message, I don't mean that the name "Liancourt Rocks" should be taken off, I just want to let people know that the words "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" are valid names. Just because they are not "English names" does not mean they cannot be used in the article. Good friend100 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On Opp's Edits

A Japanese Wikipedian by the name Opp has been running around this entire page, obliteratng references to the name Dokdo, verifiable ancient records and online sources, and making original research based on his own personal observations. He should be at the very least prevented from editing this page in consideration of these examples of vandalism:

1. Removed ", records from the Joseon Dynasty (1392~1910) such as the Man'gi yoram ("Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the Yojiji ("Gazette") in its chapter on military adminstration that "Usando and Dokdo all belonged to Usan-guk." in the section "The Three Kingdoms Period." - These sources are records and thus belong to the article.
2. Deleted "(the former Korean name for Dokdo)" and "but the islet is in its proper position." - both are verified facts.
3. Deleted "Dokdo" from "both Ulleung-do and Dokdo."
4. Deleted "(Dokdo)" from "the two islands of Usando (Dokdo) and Ulleung-do."
5. Deleted "s" from "islands" to falsify the fact that both Ulleung-do and Dokdo were evacuated and make it as if only Ulleungdo had been inhabited.
6. Removed "This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below)." - This a fact; Opp dos not have the right to deny such information.
7. Removed "The South Korean government insists that the area of "Ulleung-do" included Dokdo." and leaves the paragraph with only the Japanese viewpoint.
8. Entirely removed "Following the diplomatic spat in the seventeenth century, the Sangoku setsujozu ("A Map of Three Adjoining Countries"), a map attached to the Sanggoku tsuran zusetsu ("An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries") was compiled by Hayashi Shihei (1738-1793) and published in 1785. The map shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ullungdo and Tokdo are shown in their correct positions in yellow. Alongside the islands Hayashi wrote, "Korea's possessions."[14]"- a verifiable reference that should not be deleted unless proved to be invalid.
9. Added "Howeve, these activities by private person such as Ahn Yong-bok, cannot be seen as effective control in international law.[15]" - which is basically blatant Japanese POV. Besides, if the Tokuwaga Shogunate made a document that acknowledged Korean territory, that is tantamount to an agreement or understanding, something that is to be honored according to international law.
10. Simply removes "(In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)" - obviously because this he considers to damaging to the Japanese argument. Nevertheless, it does not express an opinion but merely points out a cotradiction in the Japanese argument - thus a fact and therefore fitting to this article.

Considering what Opp has been trying to do to this article, it is clear that he has every intention to distort, omit, and pervert references to Korean terminology, cartography, and historiography in regard to Dokdo (examples 1~8). He also makes use of original research and inserts adds his own viewpoints (examples 9,10). Japanese POV has no place anywhere on this encyclopedia and thus all users of Wikipedia should oppose to Opp efforts to deny history. Thus I strongly suggest that Opp be prohibited from vandalizing this page until he can cite a logical motive to delete what are facts/references that perfectly belong to this article.--Jh.daniell 11:09, 5 June 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

Strongly Support: By all means, that's one less painful POV to handle. (Wikimachine 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Support: Reasons are because of the facts and evidence that Jh.daniell has recorded. Good friend100 22:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

puppet show

at least some of the new editors constantly reverting this and related pages have been confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Bright888 and have been blocked: [16]. perhaps page protection is the next step if this continues. Appleby 04:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! Just as I said... Mobilization from the Japanese POV editors. This is why we can't have another vote. (Wikimachine 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
Wow this is not getting funny anymore, including the confirmation of a Japanese vandalizer in the above discussion section. I agree we should protect the page and conduct further investigation for more sockpuppets. Good friend100 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


You should not make personal attacks. Your behavior is a crying shame.Reito-maguro 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry it just makes me angry that people are messing this discussion page up and how everyone is hostile toward each other. This is a discussion page not an all out war. Good friend100 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move 2

As you can see above, there are many people against moving the article to Dokdo. But somehow those opinions are ignored. Let's start a vote all over again.

Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks Michael Friedrich 06:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Support Do nothing about it. Liancourt Rocks are Dokdo in Korean.
  • Support Let me write my opinion here though I am the one who proposed a move.
    First, #Common name shows that either Dokdo or Takeshima cannot be said to be dominate in the English language.
    Second, we are not in a position to decide which country the islets are belong to. We have to remain neutral here in wikipedia regardless of our belief. If it can be proved that "Dokdo" is a prevailing name in English, I am not against calling the article Dokdo. But if it cannot be proved, the name of the article should remain neutral. I believe the most neutral name is "Liancourt Rocks" because that name is neither Korean or Japanese.
    I am against those who are trying to call the article Dokdo insisting that the islets are Korean territory. But I also against those who are trying to call the islets the Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima insisting that the islets are Japanese territory.
    As for Senkaku, I am not opposed to having it moved to Pinnacle either if that can make the aricle more neutral. Wikipedia should not give its readers any impressions that the islets are Korean territory or Japanese territory. If the readers get interested in the dispute, they will study about it themselves. Calling the islets Dokdo seems to give readers an impression that the islets are Korean territory for sure. I don't care which country they belong to. Korea people believe the islets are Korean territory for sure, but Japanese people believe the islets are Japanese territory too. To maintain neutrality, the article should contain both Japanese claims and Korean claims. And the name of the aricle should not support either side. Michael Friedrich 07:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the massive influx of single purpose accounts from 2channel, apparent puppet editors, and revert wars, a vote now would be a spectacularly bad idea. Unfortunately, it will take some time for this article to calm down to the level that a productive discussion becomes possible again. I am sympathetic to using "Liancourt Rocks" (I didn't vote in the recent survey, and supported Liancourt Rocks in the previous one), but I don't support having a new survey now. --Reuben 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Reuben and don't see anything in what Michael has said that would be good enough justification for a re-vote, especially at this time.--Sir Edgar 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support We all know that Takeshima/Dokdo is an issue that has been intensely contested between the Japanese and Korean wikipedians, and simply there is no way that a poll to decide which name to adopt for the island could result in unanimous approval for Dokdo, the one that is supported by the Korean side. Yet the pollstarter, a known Korea apologist, hastily closed the poll in the bare minimum period of 5 days once his fellow Korean wikipedians (who have already been stacked here from the begining) have finished voting for Dokdo, before a single Japanese wikipedian got to express his opinion. It was joke of a poll and hardly a respectable one. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Korean... Rōnin 11:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hermeneus and his ridiculous accusations. Typical Japanese behavior- wrongly accuse others of what they actually do. The Japanese posting on this Talk page should be ashamed of themselves. Tsk. Tsk. It is an embarassing day to be Japanese.--222.233.205.166 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hermeneus, I'm going to let this one go because I do recall having called you "a Japanese rightist" before and I apologize for that (even though I believe this is something that you have as a self-proclamation somewhere). So, we're even. But I would like to ask you to refrain from name-calling per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'm going to state this just once: I am not "Korean" and I am not a "Korea apologist". You may get this impression because I have corrected unfair references about Korea in Japan articles, especially when it comes to ancient history and the ordering of names and whatnot. But this is because I have a deep interest in the two countries. And, in the process of studying their relationship, I have noticed inconsistencies like using the terms "China", "Japan", and "the Korean peninsula" together in the same sentence. I believe Japan has the upper hand vis-a-vis Korea. This is because Japan is far more advanced, has a better and longer relationship with the West (especially the U.S.), and is better at PR. I will continue to edit Japan/Korea articles to help improve them. But, for now, I think I'm going to stay out of this one. It's too ugly and I'm offended by all the accusations.--Sir Edgar 00:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support koreans lose their control about this issue. It is the fairest action to be taken. However, Takeshima (Dokdo in Korean's sense) is illegally occupied by Korean military. The San Francisco Treaty confirms Japanese occupancy officially.
  • I oppose a new vote for the same reason. It's all fine and dandy to hold a new vote, I even encourage it, but if noone's willing to sort out all the sock puppet accounts that are liable to vote at this time, we should delay the vote until most of them are gone so as to make the job easier for all of us. Rōnin 11:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Michael Friedrich, you did not make consensus before this poll. This poll is not meaningful because the rasoning of the poll is not checked by discussions. This poll additonally contains the possibility of the next some kind of troubles. Please delay it as recommended by Rōnin and discuss with other people about your suggestion. Reito-maguro 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The last survey was seriously flawed and arguably invalid since there was no discussion on the nature of the survey beforehand. So I think another vote is mandatory. However, we have to conduct the survey in a manner that no one can challenge it. I think it better to wait for a while (a week or two) until the situation calms down. Then, we will invite as many people as possible to discuss the matter thoroughly (I think WP:RFC would be a good idea), after which we can have a vote.--Dwy 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Oppose-Really, I don't understand why a new poll or vote should be held concerning the topic of moving this article back to the Liancourt Rocks. The Senakaku Islands article is just as biased considering its title; if Japanese Wikipedians (or actually the sock puppets from 2channel)insist on a change to Dokdo, allow it only after the Senkaku article has been moved to some ridiculous name such as the Pinnacle Islands. Of course, Japanese Wikipedians are unlikely to conceed to that either, due to their nationally-advocated self-centered victim mentality; they're more likely to insist on a Senkaku/Liancourt situation. The current titles of both articles are equally biased and thus there is no double standard. Besides, there is simply no way to block or even distinguish true voters and the massive influx of Japanese sock puppets. If a vote was held now, it would be invalid in every way possible to think of.

By the way, Hermeneus, I rather think that you should retract that idiotic statement of yours in which you make the unfounded claim that Korean users had prepared to take over this article. You have no proof except for some lousy archive vote, in which none of the voters seemed Korean or had been proven to be so. Your claims are so thoroughly intergrated with the typical Japanese victim mentality and are living proof (along with the sock puppets employed above) of the far-fetchedness of the claims made by apologists in Japan, who continue to believe they are part of an international conspiracy.

I am not voting on this, further strengthening its invalidity. Not at all, especially when there has been mobilization from the Japanese side. (Wikimachine 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Oppose: I am just voting because I supported the move from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo on the previous vote. But I do not think the vote will turn out true since the sabotage attempt on the previous vote. Also, confirmation of sock puppet use is not going to bring out valid conclusions of this vote.

Oppose I wouldn't trust the poll votes, and not until sock-puppets have been snuffed out, it wouldn't be safe to hold a vote.

Hermanaus that not cool. Oyo321 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose On previous arguments Ken ta987 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Dokdo is Korea. Japan is an brazen-faced invader who have not reflect on conduct. Japanese are all dusty. Don`t forget Peal Harbor and Batan in Philippines --Rheo1905 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Don't repeat the same Request.

Hello Rheo1905, its great to have another user discussing about the article. One thing to remember is that we should be polite in this discussion and not bad mouth anybody here without good reasons. If you want to discuss your thoughts or topics then it would be a good idea to start under a new heading. Good friend100 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Military Action

This is just one of my thoughts, but I've got a big question. Is,or will any type of military combat occur out of the rock disputes? Between South Korea and Japan. In history, some action has occured, including the sinking of a Japanese naval ship by Korean mortar. What do you think? Oyo321 00:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oyo this is not an internet forum, please do not provoke Korean and/or Japanese users here because that question would be very sensitive to some people and it would not improve relations between any Koreans or Japanese users here. That kind of question is irrevelent and not important not only is it rude. We are not here to start wars on Wikipedia and bad mouth each other. I strongly suggest we do not go any furthur into this discussion you just opened up. Good friend100 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as before. However, this vote is null. It is certainly audacious to vote now when the vote on the movement of this article has taken place barely a month ago. However, if we want to compromise the late Japanese-based wikipedians, I suggest that we combine the voting results of the previous vote and current vote before reconsidering the vote---Korea has its reasons not to go to the ICJ as I have highlighted that they strongly presume that the In-law of the royal family judge, Hisaichi Owada's position might make a more or less biased decision. On the other hand, we must wait for Korean and Japanese decision to send their reports to ICJ before considering Dokdo and Takeshima.

As a wikipedian had said, I must highlight that in the total world makeup of the English-press that Liancourt Rocks is used mainly in Europe and to some extent, America, while the rest mentioned ....Dokdo (Takeshima)... in their articles mentioning the rocks. Currently, Dokdo is used as the principal name as it is under semi-legal control---my definition of semi-legal is that in a contested land the controller's (Korea) name is usually mentioned first followed by its contester (Japan). For now, even I vote oppose, I won't really mind having Liancourt Rocks as the article's name. Mr Tan 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

saintjust's edits

these are some of the problems i see:

  1. deleting (east sea) as secondary name for sea of japan, despite consensus and settled convention
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. that scap 677 was not ultimate determination is mentioned twice in succession.
  5. 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.
  6. the times & britannica, if you want, can go in the external links section. they have not significantly affected the history of the dispute.
  7. 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)

  1. "East sea" is already mentioned in the first appearance of the Sea of Japan on this article and that's enough.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)
  1. um, yes, i restored it after you deleted it.
  2. that's fine
  3. 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))

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)

Why are historical records undesirable for South Korea being deleted?

1.Samguk Sagi: Another name of Usan-state was Ulleung-island.[17]
2.Taejong-sillok in 1412: There lived 60 people in Yusan-state-island.[18]
3.Taejong-sillok in 1417: There lived 86 people in Usan-island. [19]
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.[20]
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.[21]
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.[22]

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)

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)
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)

Permission to go to Dokdo

"Takeshima Tokai Yuraiki Bassho Hikae, written by Ōya Kyuemon, records that in 1618 the Tokugawa Shogunate granted the Ōya and Murakawa families of Yonago fishing rights, and in 1661, feudal tenure, of "Takeshima", which then referred to Ulleung-do. On the way to Ulleung-do, Japanese fishermen sometimes used the islets, then called in Japanese "Matsushima" (松島), as an intermediate port of call."

This paragraph comes from the article of Dokdo. It reads that the Shogunate granted the Oya and Murakawa families fishing rights. But why did Japanese citizens need to get permission from the Japanese goverment if Japan claimed the islets as their own? If a territory is part of a country why would its own citizens have to get a permission just to go to an islet? If this is true, then Japan must have not considered Dokdo its own territory since permission had to be granted just to go there and fish. This must mean that Japan didn't think of Dokdo as their own territory. Good friend100 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All the land properties and natural resources of Japan were owned by the Shogunate, like in any other feudal systems, and the marchants, fishermen, etc. couldn't do their business without official permission from the Shogunate to use them. Even in modern democracies today you can't conduct fishery freely anywhere you want. --222.3.73.246 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not well-versed enough in Japanese feudalism to make this call definitively, but I would suspect that granting someone 'feudal tenure' over a specific place would sort of presuppose that you actually owned the territory in question. Why did a Japanese citizen have to get permission to fish somewhere? Well, in feudal England, hunting without permission could be considered poaching, and was punishable by death (in the king's forests, anyhow). I dunno if Japan had similar traditions, but I would also think that your claim doesn't hold a whole lot of water. Does the USA not consider Hawai'i part of its territory because you have to get a fishing license (permission) to fish there? I would personally think not, but then again, I freely admit that I may not know all the facts. --Zonath 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't grant rights to someone to conduct fishery in an area that is not in your jurisdiction. --222.3.73.246 03:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_4&oldid=1136904506"