![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11
Please Wikimachine leave it alone for at least six months. When if you still want to move it then suggest another WP:RM. But 400 KB is enought for now on the page name. BTW next time perhapse you will also consider expressing support for a compromise option like "Dokdo/Takeshima" instead of all or nothing on Dokdo and only Dokdo-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In your Economy section, I would like to point this out because it doesn't make complete sense to me:
Over 900 Korean citizens list the islets as their residence, while over 2,000 Japanese do the same. However, only two people, a married Korean couple, are actual permanent residents. [1]
...
There are approximately 37 South Korean police that guard the islets, also there are Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries personnel, a married Korean couple (whose occupation is fishing), and three lighthouse keepers living on the islets. In the past, several fishermen also lived there. [2]
It says that only two people are living on the island, and then later it says that 3 additional lighthouse keepers are also living there. How is this not a contradiction? theanphibian 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
- Article121
- 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
- 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
It's clear that four users are working their hardest to harrass me and have labeled me a sockpuppet. I am filing complaints against these individuals and will not let up until the accusations are disproven and corrective measures are taken. At least one of them have posted on my talk page claiming total and complete innocence on their part and I don't buy it. Davidpdx 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, keep trying to supress the truth of the harassment that has taken place. I'm sure you'd like that now that you and your buddy Parceboy have the upper hand. Davidpdx 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the edit summary suggesting I was trying to "suppress the truth," I'm sorry but I still fail to see any suggestion here to improve the Liancourt Rocks article. I don't see why this discussion is here. I also am somewhat hesitant to believe you are a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. This stint of extreme incivilty and bad faith doesn't do a whole lot to illustrate what a model editor you are, though. You talk as if we've been mortal enemies since kindergarten, and I talked with you like twice in my lifetime before this, both times in the last week. --Cheers, Komdori 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
For the editors concerned, I'm quite certain myself(obviously) that I'm not a sockpuppet of Davidpx, or Lion369 for that matter. I've requested a re-check, so please don't make any haste judgements on whether this sockpuppetry accusation is "confirmed". Cydevil38 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the final conclusion? What is the reason? Who did this? I can't see anything. Kingj123 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that we've renamed the Dokdo article to the name that is most internationally recognized, I suggest we rename the article on Gando, a piece of territory that is clearly under Chinese control, to Jiandao, the name that is internationally recognized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reconquista1412 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is undeniably pro-Japan. Every article is tilted completely in favor of the Japanese POV. If " Senkaku Islands" is not moved to "Pinnacle Islands", this will be confirmed entirely.-- 165.244.20.221 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:165.244.20.221.. Since Dokdo has been changed to it's so-called "English/NPOV" name, Senkaku must be changed to Pinnacle Islands- if this doesn't happen, it shows that Wikipedia is overtly, without doubt, pro-Japanese. -- DandanxD 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, a member of the Korean wikipedia team saying that wikipedia is undoubtedly pro-Japanese and a member from the Chinese side saying that yes, Senkaku must be renamed. I'm not going to comment as to which is right, because as you'll see from my IP I'm in Japan, other than to say that me refraining is the right thing to do, and you guys should take note of that. I wonder if you guys agree on Kojoseon and Koguryo. 125.54.22.228 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing the name from Dokdo is a mistake – you cannot decide by vote what something is called. South Korea is in possession of the islands. Senkaku must NOT be renamed - Japan has it. This whole fiasco is absurd. Congrats to those responsible for this PC mess, you’ve just contributed to the weakness in the veracity of Wikipedia in general. Dprkstudies 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As a Korean, I think the name Liancourt Rocks have no influences to Korea and Korean people at all. Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks in En.) islets are obvious Korean territories, so the decision changes none of the facts except the English name for the islets in English Wikipedia. I am actually happy that the small Korean islets is getting a lot of attention from people around the world. Although I like the historical and original Korean name, Dokdo, better regardless of POV. Motivr 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the I don't understand the concept of Wikipedia NPOV section.
Here's how it works: If a naming follows Wikipedia policy then it is defacto NPOV. The names in English Wikipedia follow the most common use in English, particularly Encyclopedias, respected resources and news. (English use doesn't include 'The islands are called Dokto in Korea, Takeshima in Japan' etc.) Senkaku is used in respected sources, so is Liancourt Rocks. Therefore they are the correct NPOV names. 221.133.86.254 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The most common English name for these islets is "Dokdo". It is the name used by the governing authority South Korea. It is not any less NPOV than "Senkaku Islands". Language does not a matter in NPOV. Please be consistent and fair. Some of you are really showing your colors.-- 165.244.20.220 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Present description is follws.
In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do and asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets, was conquered and "re-integrated" into the Korean kingdom of Silla in 512.
Original text of Samguk Sagi is follows
十三年夏六月,于山國帰服,歳以士宜為貢于山國,在溟州正東海島,或名欝陵島,地方一百里,恃嶮不服,伊異斯夫,為何瑟羅州軍主,謂于山人愚悍難以威来,可以計服,乃多造木偶師子,分載戦船,抵其国海岸誑告白,汝若不服,則放此猛獣,踏殺之,國人恐懼則降
Which chinese character corresponds to "asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets"? This is a clear lie mistake. I think description of this article is further KPOV for several months. --
Opp2
08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Present description is follows
However, Korean scholars such as Professor Shin Yong-ha of Hanyang University argue against this by saying that Jukdo, as with Dokdo, is not only also rather small in size, but is even less noteworthy than Dokdo on a map due to its proximity to Ulleungdo, thus making it meaningless to draw it unto a map in the immediate presence of a much larger island while Dokdo, due to its distance, commands a greater need to be displayed on a cartograph to leave no ambiguity concerning the administrative control of the Korean government. Korean scholars also argue that there is little way to infer information from the depiction of minor islands on older drawings due to the fact that their shape is generally more or less the same (that is, all are miniature circles).
These are presumptions based on KPOV without evidence. Is such a long sentence necessary so that it may make an excuse for Korea why? I can offer the verification map like this [1] if there is a detailed image of these maps. I think that the reader only has to judge it from the verified map.-- Opp2 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
lions3639 wrote another article about the page move. 위키피디아 독도명칭 결국 변경 Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.30 17:08
Are those who were suspected sockpuppetry editing from their office? Jjok 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/30/2007053000903.html I read this news.
Liancourt Rocks? It is not POV.
locational name use their country's pronounciation. it is pov.
Dokdo is Korean territory. japanese opinion is not important. korean polices and civilian live their.
Korean make Korean territory's english name.
Liancourt Rocks???
Japanse call US as "rice country".
Korean call US as "beutiful country".
United State of America -> Rice country? United State of America -> Beutiful country?
It is POV? It is nonsense. it is joke...hahaha
-- WonYong ( talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This guy is the same one that posted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Sovereigns_and_Five_Emperors "They are all Koreans" Stupid Korean Nationalist
See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. This will be presented to the closing admin User:Husond. ( Wikimachine 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
While I know it isn't general acceptable to change archieved pages, I am asking that the changes I made noting that I was cleared of the allegation of sockpuppetry be left alone. The allegations were made before the poll closed and took some time to clear myself and one other person. Although it does nothing for the outcome, it would be nice to think my voice counted for something. Especially since I had to argue to get myself cleared of wrongdoing. Davidpdx 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
These are geographic informations concerning Usando of a Chosun government. Official Record of Chosun concerning the geography of Usando is very few and valuable. However, these important information is not being written in a present article. I am very wondered.
Conference record(備辺司謄録) January 19, 1735
戊寅年間朝家送張漢相, 看審圖形以來, 而聞鬱陵島, 廣闊土沃, 曾有人居基址, 或有往來之痕, 其西又有于山島, 而亦且廣闊云矣
The Chosun government made 張漢相 investigate Ullengdo, and he saw the figure of Ullengdo. After that, Ullendgo has been heard a vast and fertile island. There are signs in the dwelling and traffic, too. In the west(of Ullengdo), there is Usando. It is said that this island is vast and fertile, too.
Investigation report of Ullengdo by 金履喬(May 12, 1807) [2]
北有于山島周回爲二三里
Usando is in the north (of Ullengdo). The circumference is 0.8km-1.2km.
Please teach if there is a reason not being described for such a valuable record. I will add to the article if there are no special question. By the way, Liancourt Rocks is neither the north nor the west of Ullengdo. Liancourt Rocks is small and not fertile.-- Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of random, so I am just adding it here. So, I am very happy that the article is chosen to be called as Liancourt Rocks. But, is it both administered by Korea and Japan? It seems like so on the info box at the right. If not, then please change it. Amphitere 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Administered by Korea and claimed by Japan, similiar to Senkaku Islands if you ask me. Good friend100 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Any country is not doing now if your effective control means lawful administration. If your effective means the exercise of administration , It can be thought that both Japan and South Korea do. Because registration to the cadastre and taxation is considered exercise of administration on International Law, Japan also will be doing. -- Opp2 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148
First, it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the 'prescribing' state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence. The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.
TEXTBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by Martin Dixon
The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.
The Critical Date by L. F. E. Goldie
In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.
By the way, Japan is prohibiting landing on Senkaku. A provocative act like South Korea government is not done. Japan is doing the declaration to admit the compulsion jurisdiction of ICJ(International Court of Justice). Therefor, it is easier for South Korea and China to bring a case Japan to ICJ. It is difficult for Japan to bring a case them oppositely because neither South Korea nor China admit the jurisdiction of ICJ. South Korea and China say that we are a peaceful state. I really wonder about their insistences. -- Opp2 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What is if the exercises are nessesary? If Korea did not exercise its power on these islets, they belong fully to Japan by default. In that sense, Senkaku islands are different than Dokdo. Kingj123 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've re-reviewed the move proposal and decided not to overturn my second closure. Putting aside the reciprocal sockpuppetry accusations, I still find a majority of users asking for this article to be moved. The main argument backing "Liancourt Rocks" ( WP:NPOV) also seems to weigh more than the main argument backing "Dokdo" (rocks being in disputed possession of South Korea). This is my final decision and I shall not reopen this case, for the sake of my mental sanity. I'm not against further move proposals for this article in the near future though. -- Hús ö nd 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about "pro-Liancourt Rocks" voters being planted. Perhaps an investigation is warranted?-- 165.244.20.220 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, in websites like Wikipedia where anybody can enter freely, voting is not that effective. However, there is no way we can do better. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And before I step out of this, I would like to comment that many editors here are still confused about your decision and that there are other factors determining the vote and not just NPOV. Strictly speaking in NPOVness and NPOV only, Senkaku Islands should be moved too since it should stay analogous to this article. I have no idea why these two articles can have no relation. Good friend100 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand there was a complaint about the previous poll that no closing date was announced. There was none for this one either. And it was a much closer vote. Why aren't people up and arms about that? This was a very controversial move. I don't think it should have been moved without a two-thirds majority. Dubious, dubious, dubious.--
To me, it seems like just a popularity contest and one where mobilization may have taken place. I don't see the real rationale behind the move. What was the reason for a vote? Was there compelling evidence for re-examination of the decision made earlier when cool minds prevailed? I'd really like someone to explain the reason for the proposal of a poll. I just don't see it from reviewing the discussion and I'm very curious to know.-- 165.244.20.220 02:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue. The administerator moved the article without a good conclusion to the debate. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the purpose of having this talk page if explanations aren't going to be explained by even the admins? There is no consensus here and admin should respect the edit process instead of participating in double blind editing! melonbarmonster 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for the move? I don't get it. Also, shouldn't a move within less than six months require more than a slight majority? This poll was a total sham, in my opinion. And how exactly is "DOKDO" not acceptable as an English name while "SENKAKU ISLANDS" is?--
If you search "Dokdo", "Takeshima", and "Liancourt Rocks" on Google, the results come out like this: Dokdo (480,000), Takeshima (570,000), Liancourt Rocks (only 54,000). Tellingly, four of the first ten hits for Takeshima are restaurant reviews. It even says that the owners are Koreans.
Takeshima is also a last name and refers to many things. Dokdo by contrast can refer only to Dokdo Island. And unlike Takeshima, there are many possible spellings: Tokdo, Tokto, Tok Do, Dok Do, and on and on and on. There are even spellings that use little apostrophes and dashes. Takeshima on the other hand does not have this spellings problem.
Plug in: Dokdo OR Tokdo OR Tokto OR "Dok Do" OR "Tok Do". Now there are 640,000. You could add in even more variations but I figured these were the most common. And yes, all of the results (on the first page, I haven't clicked through all three billion pages yet) are relavant unlike with Takeshima. Jin29 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Takeshima" and "Tokto" (in any of its spellins) are controversial names: pro-Japanese people will favour "Takeshima", while pro-Korean people will favour "Tokto" (or any of its other spellings). However, "Liancourt Rocks" is neither Japanese nor Korean, so maybe that is a more neutral name?
I'm not sure that Google is very useful for determing the most common name in English. Searching for "Takeshima" or "Tokto" will not only find web pages in English, but also pages in French, German, Spanish etc. and you won't know how many of the results actually are in English. Even by limiting the language to English (using Google's search options) will yield lots of results in other languages, because many web pages have no or wrong language specifications. ( Stefan2 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
LOL then what's up with the Senkaku Island. Isnt this "pro-Japanese"? -- DandanxD 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
These sources are the most credible and authoritative references we have on the topic in my opinion rather than google searches, personal websites, encyclopedias, etc.. Perhaps those of you with access to academic research tools can do some searches for scholarly third party articles on this topic.
So far there are only 2 journal articles and both are pro-Korean. Some pro-Japanese and neutral articles would be helpful in our discussion:
melonbarmonster 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Usually, many academic journals are heavily affected by Japanese. Kingj123 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We have discussed the first article by Sean Fern a while ago. He tried to be neutral but he could not. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 8#Professor? Sean Fern I also want to ask his opinion on Rusk documents [4] and Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East [5]. Kalani O'Sullivan's new Dokto page seems here and well-updated. Jjok 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It has happened before and it will happen again. Somehow, some people feel that using a "native" name lends them authenticity and high moral ground. I have no idea why. This is English Wikipedia, not a soapbox. Some time ago, I tried to change Sinmiyangyo to a more common English name, a name that people could understand, and it led to an acrimonious exchange that prompted me to leave Wikipedia. As things stand now, Wikipedia is generating more text on talk pages than on the actual articles, and I think all of us should start to reconsider the value of these name-debates. Again, this is English Wikipedia. I will stay on the sidelines for the time being.-- Amban 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Do any of these maps contain Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima? As far as I can tell, they do not. If they don't, why are they here? Parsecboy 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Dokdo is there clearly, look again. Kingj123 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a map where an actual island was overlapped with Donguk jido of the map gallery. [16] I do not understand logic that the Usando on this map is Liancourt Rocks at all. -- Opp2 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have initiated a new discussion for renaming Senkaku Islands. If anybody is interested, please comment at the talk page [20]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so there's no confusion, User:Jjok appended Sinmiyangyo at the end of the title of this section of the Talk page. I've only initiated a discussion at Senkaku Islands, and as far as I can remember, I have never edited or commented at Sinmiyangyo. I assume this means he plans on initiating a discussion at Sinmiyangyo. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought the whole thing was controlled by South Korea. What is "alternatively administered"? Is there actual Japanese administrative presence on the islands? -- PalaceGuard008 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Kingj123
13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The cadaster registration are administerative actions which is admited by the judicial precedent and Japan do. On International Law, it is accurate that South Korea is occupying and the sovereignty(contain administration) is not fixed. UN also say sovereignty is unsettled.-- Opp2 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Koreans are at least controlling the islets. Japanese cannot enter. How can a country administer when they can't even enter these rocks? Kingj123 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical?
Kingj123 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
... the discussion is getting sidetracked. the question is, what does everyone think about the term "alternatively administered"?
The article seems to indicate that Korea controls the islands, but Japan sometimes does surveys in the EEZ, is that right?
If that is the case, then incursions into the EEZ is not "administration", by the simple fact that the EEZ is not part of the territorial sea nor contiguous zone. Unless there is some evidence that Japan has some control over the land territory, the territorial sea (12 nm zone), or the contiguous zone (24 nm zone), then I don't think "alternatively administered" is justified. -- PalaceGuard008 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The Kyodo News reference(ref number 2 I think) is a Japanese news source that specficially states that the administration over islands is by Korea. Japanese administration or alternative administration is not even mentioned. Accordingly, I don't see a reason why this referenced fact should be left out. "Alternative administration" by Japan is just POV attempt at match tit for tat. It's unreferenced and doesn't belong. If anyone has references please provide it. Thanks. melonbarmonster 04:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See here, at Kuril Islands dispute. It is worded with "administered by Russia, but also claimed by Japan." Yet, Komdori is making no move to change this to "alternatively administered by Japan". I see this as POV pushing and simply Komdori's own POV against Korea. Good friend100 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets just use "administered" and "claimed" instead of "controlled" or "owned". I don't want another large fight about this. Good friend100 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
South Korea isn't communist and get your facts straight. The couple decided to live there, not because the government forced them to be there so South Korea can say "look theres civilians living on the islets its ours".
What do you mean by "village"? Certainly Japan must do some "paperwork" on Kuril islands if there are 30,000 people when it administers a piece of rock with 40 people on it. Its not "you might be right". Reuben is right in that most people dont go behind the scenes to check out whos doing what. South Korea administers the island but Japan also claims it. Thats about it. Good friend100 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The expression to disregard International Law cannot be allowed. -- Opp2 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass media etc.
I don't think anyone's claiming that Dokdo isn't claimed by Japan, controlled by SK, etc..
And Korea had all the right to defend it's own territory post WWII against Japanese encroachment on Dokdo. Japan's claims only go back to 1905 terra nullius claim which everyone knows was absolutely invalid due Korea's earlier claim and the fact that the claim was made under military coercion. SK doesn't even recognize Japan's claims of dispute.
As for the issue "administration", we have a Japanese new source that specifically states that the islands are administered by Korea! Provide references that oppose this or state that Japanese "alternatively adminsters these islands". melonbarmonster 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The term occupied territories (see that article) in general refers to regions distinct from the recognized territory of a sovereign state but which it controls, especially with military forces. Dokdo is disputed, not occupied. Get your facts right, Opp2. -- DandanxD 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And a lot of votes were tossed out on the Dokdo side while some dubious ones were left on the Liancourt Rocks side. This is a shameful episode in Wikipedia history. I can't believe the admins allowed this. I guess this place is totally full of pro-Japan people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.212.69.195 ( talk) 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) -- copied from Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11 by Nightshadow28 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the majority does not matter anyways. Kingj123 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop fiddling over this. Komdori and Endroit are obviously very smug about this and LactoseTI is praising the admin who moved this article. We can always move it back, stop talking about it and move on. Good friend100 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are 100 more votes required for Dokdo? Why are the requirements higher? Liancourt Rocks only had a thin margin for majority. I don't understand how this move could have happened when there was no clear consensus...-- 165.244.20.220 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The source assumed that SCAPIN677 is still effective is requested. I found the article on Korea Times about this theme. [26] This article is very interesting.
Korea Times
However, after the Napoleonic Wars, international law underwent a transformation, and “annexation” was no longer permitted.
There are scholars who are classifying annexation into the cession. Does the author say that the cession is unlawful? I do not know the scholar of International Law who assumes that the cession and annexation are unlawful.
Korea Times
- In the modern era, conquest must be followed by military occupation. The Hague Regulations (1907) specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
- In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest
To begin with, the conquest indicates the military subjugation and occupation. Does the author think that there is a peaceful conquest? The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) is a law of war. It provides for the administrate of occupied territories of the war. Most(all) scholars of International Law say that the conquest became illegal after WW1.
If the conquest is lawful, International Military Tribunal for the Far East clearly becomes unlawful.
Korea Times say
As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG).
What does USMG mean? U.S. army, occupation forces in Iraq or DoD? Were there two governments in the United States? Was the United States a divided country such as China and Taiwan? Which country has approved the USMG? Common sense was disregarded, and a very interesting insistence. However, grounds are uncertain.
Should I adopt this article as a citation? A lot of annotations and rebuttals will be needed for normal International Law if it adopts--
Opp2 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No
melonbarmonster
17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to administration, occupation, and control (which are all commonly used to mean the same thing, but with different connotations), how about saying that South Korea maintains a physical presence on the island? I think that states the matter succinctly, without shades of approval or disapproval. -- Reuben 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How can somebody get confused by reading "administered by Korea but also claimed by Japan"?. I'm sure most readers who search for this article are aware of the dispute. Good friend100 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "administration" is a simple enough word that readers and editors won't confuse it with "internationally recognized jurisdiction". Come on Komdori. melonbarmonster 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
They use "administered" for disputed territories. "Occupied" is correct since South Korea does occupy it, but it is probably considered too strong. Good friend100 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
All the terms on their own suffers from the same concerns I think. That's why I was going with "controlled and administered". melonbarmonster 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning was because "administration" alone doesn't imply control. Since both "administration" and "control" are supported by citations both were included to make it clear as possible. Occupied is also supported by citations. It's just a matter of agreeing upon which word(s) most clearly convey the status of these islands. melonbarmonster 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Claiming lack of consensus while giving specious arguments is really poor. Regardless of who does or doesn't agree, you're dissent loses meaning if you can't offer reason and evidence for your position. melonbarmonster 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I never encountered an "invisible argument" for the sake of a non-consensus claim before. That's kind of amusing. melonbarmonster 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Extra implications as in the presence? Senkaku Islands is similiary written. Good friend100 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So what "extra implications" does it have? It just sounds like you and Lactose are being difficult and claiming positions that doesn't exist for the sake of claiming lack of consensus. I've provided a Japanese news source that uses the word "administrated" to describe Korean control of Dokdo. If you believe otherwise you and Lactose are going to have to do better than just CLAIM "extra implication" or things "maybe" being different, etc..
Lastly, I waited 12 hours for feedback and comment before going ahead with the edit. You and Lactose are reverting back immediately and didn't start participating again only to justify your reverts. A little reciprocation of courtesy seems appropriate instead of immediate reverting. Cut the specious arguments and just be honest if you don't really have a reason for being against this. melonbarmonster 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) melonbarmonster 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with melonbarmonster. This article should be written like Senkaku Islands using "administered". It doesn't make sense how you simply try to change the wording here and not at Senkaku simply because you "aren't an expert on that topic". What "topic"? You don't need a "expert knowledge" to make Senkaku NPOV. Senkaku uses "administered" yet you do not even try to change "administered" there. I see this as POV.
Stop telling me to assume good faith. I have tried to assume good faith enough times. When CPOV editors call Koreans "ethnocentrists" and call wikipedia a "place for circlejerking for the Koreans", you don't even care. Yet when Dokdo or Goguryeo advocates do a bit wrong, you start exploding (ex. Wikimachine's tests which are retarded but your tests a fine). Good friend100 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia, the Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands in Japanese and Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese), which are effectively controlled by the Japanese but also claimed by the Chinese, are titled the "Senkaku Islands."
In the same encyclopedia, the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese), which are effectively controlled by the Koreans but also claimed by the Japanese, are titled the "Liancourt Rocks."
This makes me wonder if consistency is valued in English Wikipedia. I think this article should be titled "Dokdo" for the sake of fairness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.111.214.149 ( talk • contribs)
The Chinese page has Dokdo(獨島) with the French (despite Liancourt being a French name), Lithuanian and Finnish pages. German, Spanish and Indonesian displays Dokdo as "Liancourt Rocks" and no foreign language Wikipedias have the article named in the Japanese-form (except Japan). As for your question, Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is administered by Korea but claimed by Japan since 1901. -- DandanxD 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As Parsecboy noted, these pictures are a little less than clear as to what is going on in them. Perhaps we could discuss how they should be modified or at least what captions they should have. --Cheers, Komdori 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And don't take off the template, discuss first. Good friend100 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Japanese map, Korean Busan is included as well. Why is that? Kingj123 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)'
It is necessary to describe both insistences of Japan(Usando is Jukdo or fabled Ulleungdo) and Korea(Usando is Liancourt Rocks) for NPOV. Both insistences are so much the better if comparable on the map like this [29].-- Opp2 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map. [30] According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (竹島/独島関係 史・資料目録, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane) [31], it is one of 『朝鮮與地全図』 (Chōsen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by 関口備正? and published in 1875 (明治8年) by 山城屋佐兵衛, 大蔵孫兵衛, and 朝倉屋久兵衛 (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14′N, 131°52′E (Liancourt Rocks, リアンコヲルトロックス) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You guys should check the 3RR incident board today and see all the reports both sides are throwing at each other.
Somebody threatened me to file a report that I am a sockpuppet. Melonbarmonster is repeatedly asking LactoseTI to stop stalking but LactoseTI doesn't seem to care.
Can we all get along and stop doing this to each other? I'm getting sick of this. Why can't we just edit articles like we used to? Good friend100 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic... Why was a poll held? What was the compelling evidence or theory that prompted it? The last time it looks like the issue was discussed calmly and there was consensus among regular contributors. AND most importantly, there was a real reason for reexamining the title. Can someone explain to me why there was a move this time? Or why there was even a poll? It seems like a hasty and unjustified move. Nobody seems to be explaining the reason why a poll was held and why the page was re-titled...-- 222.233.205.82 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The move was sudden and wasn't fair on both sides. There were socks on both sides of the poll. What really got the attention of the admin was when Komdori introduced a Korean article that discussed about wikipedia and Dokdo and the poll. I doubt that Koreans would come here and screw things up. In fact, I think that a sockpuppet was made to have the same name of the author who wrote the article so the Korean side just looks bad.
If true, thats dirty playing in my viewpoint.
We can always move it back so I'm not too worried. Good friend100 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You think I'm whining that Wikipedia isn't fair? I think Husond made a good decision, considering what he was exposed to when he first reviewed the poll.
I have had enough of assuming good faith from some of the editors here and CPOV editors at Goguryeo. I am not saying that Wikipedia isn't fair and I'm not whining that somebody else started it. I'm pointing out the fact that you are POV and your actions are clear enough to assume that. Good friend100 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Since so many people are confused, I'll explain my view of what happened. Komdori and Macgruder wanted the article to go back to Liancourt Rocks, but since the poll prior to the last already contained Liancourt Rocks as a candidate, and it failed, they needed to find another reason to make a move request. And in process of blindly groping for new arguments, they brought in the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo - this they used to open a hole to spill in all the other alternatives & begin another poll. Once I agreed that the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo was something new & therefore agreed for a new move proposal, Komdori, who didn't firmly advocate his choices but merely complained POV, went for Liancourt Rocks, while Macgruder went for "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo. Ok. Something that really gets me mad is that these "NPOV" rule-abiding Wikipedians played on with so much indirect bigotry, personal attacks, and manipulation of data, etc., that every time they tell others to maintain good faith or control themselves, etc., I see them as complete hypocrites & their acts as signs of complete arrogance. (So, anybody who tells others to remain in good faith or remain calm automatically go onto my red list. The sad thing is that this atmosphere became an inherent part of the Wikipedia culture.) For example, when my data clearly shows that Dokdo dominates over the other 2 main options completely in these xxx searches, they gave really ambiguous, stupid, and very arguable reasons why it might be inaccurate, and they give their own searches that are even more flawed than mine. And when I point these flaws, they give really stupid reasons on why they don't matter. And because they talk really ambiguously and pushes their way into a lot of stuff, I am forced to talk into even the smallest things. And then LactoseTI comes in & tells me to not talk about those trivial matters. During all these talks, the discussion fills with my defenses and their offenses. Because they call even the most accurate searches false & they write that all over the place, admins & outside readers think so too. In the end, like some Wiki critics say, those who talk the most get their wish true in Wikiepdia. ( Wikimachine 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
You've said that at least 3 times already. Good friend100 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with what Husond said. "Article to stay at Liancourt for now". =) Good friend100 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Present article is being written as a fact that Ahn Yong-bok went to Edo and received Kanpaku's(shogunate's) note. However, it cannot be confirmed that he met the shogunate and even he went to Edo(Tokyo) where shogunate was living in the record of Japan. [33] Therefore, there are few Japanese scholars who thinks Kanpaku's note was fact. Even Prof. Naito who is insisting Takeshima is South Korea territory is denying this note as Ahn's lie.
もちろん、安龍福が述べているように、鳥取から江戸に送られ、幕府が審問した上で、鳥取藩主が鬱陵島は朝鮮領であるとする書経を安龍福に与えたなどというのは、全て安龍福の作り話である(Of course, it is all fictions by Ahn that he was sent to Edo from Tottri and after shogunate's interrogation the load of Tottori clan gave the treaty which described that Ullengdo is Chosun territory.) [34] pp.9
Therefore, present article is KPOV. It is necessary to retouch. -- Opp2 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
issues of present article about 1693 visit
<present article>
In the spring of 1693 in the 19th year of King Sukjong about 40 Korean fisherman from Tongnae and Ulsan clashed with the Otani and Murakami fishermen at Ulleung-do. The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and taken to the lord of Okinoshima. The lord of Okinoshima soon found the case outside his official competency and sent Ahn to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu (modern-day Shimane Prefecture). Ahn was then taken to Edo, where the Kanpaku (Imperial regent) of the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleungdo as Korean territory. Ahn was in possession of the note until he was seized en route to Korea by the lord of Nagasaki, where it was confiscated and he was held on the grounds of trespassing onto Japanese territory.
<issues>
I drew the Ahn's movement route in Japan in the map. [35] This map is based on this thesis. [36]-- Opp2 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Amendment bill about 1693 visit
reference:竹島(鬱陵島)をめぐる日朝関係史p61-119 by prof. Naito Seityu.
Please correct my poor English. -- Opp2 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't change parts of the article (as you did) without a proper discussion. -- DandanxD 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11
Please Wikimachine leave it alone for at least six months. When if you still want to move it then suggest another WP:RM. But 400 KB is enought for now on the page name. BTW next time perhapse you will also consider expressing support for a compromise option like "Dokdo/Takeshima" instead of all or nothing on Dokdo and only Dokdo-- Philip Baird Shearer 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In your Economy section, I would like to point this out because it doesn't make complete sense to me:
Over 900 Korean citizens list the islets as their residence, while over 2,000 Japanese do the same. However, only two people, a married Korean couple, are actual permanent residents. [1]
...
There are approximately 37 South Korean police that guard the islets, also there are Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries personnel, a married Korean couple (whose occupation is fishing), and three lighthouse keepers living on the islets. In the past, several fishermen also lived there. [2]
It says that only two people are living on the island, and then later it says that 3 additional lighthouse keepers are also living there. How is this not a contradiction? theanphibian 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
- Article121
- 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
- 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
It's clear that four users are working their hardest to harrass me and have labeled me a sockpuppet. I am filing complaints against these individuals and will not let up until the accusations are disproven and corrective measures are taken. At least one of them have posted on my talk page claiming total and complete innocence on their part and I don't buy it. Davidpdx 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Komdori, keep trying to supress the truth of the harassment that has taken place. I'm sure you'd like that now that you and your buddy Parceboy have the upper hand. Davidpdx 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the edit summary suggesting I was trying to "suppress the truth," I'm sorry but I still fail to see any suggestion here to improve the Liancourt Rocks article. I don't see why this discussion is here. I also am somewhat hesitant to believe you are a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. This stint of extreme incivilty and bad faith doesn't do a whole lot to illustrate what a model editor you are, though. You talk as if we've been mortal enemies since kindergarten, and I talked with you like twice in my lifetime before this, both times in the last week. --Cheers, Komdori 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
For the editors concerned, I'm quite certain myself(obviously) that I'm not a sockpuppet of Davidpx, or Lion369 for that matter. I've requested a re-check, so please don't make any haste judgements on whether this sockpuppetry accusation is "confirmed". Cydevil38 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the final conclusion? What is the reason? Who did this? I can't see anything. Kingj123 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that we've renamed the Dokdo article to the name that is most internationally recognized, I suggest we rename the article on Gando, a piece of territory that is clearly under Chinese control, to Jiandao, the name that is internationally recognized.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reconquista1412 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is undeniably pro-Japan. Every article is tilted completely in favor of the Japanese POV. If " Senkaku Islands" is not moved to "Pinnacle Islands", this will be confirmed entirely.-- 165.244.20.221 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:165.244.20.221.. Since Dokdo has been changed to it's so-called "English/NPOV" name, Senkaku must be changed to Pinnacle Islands- if this doesn't happen, it shows that Wikipedia is overtly, without doubt, pro-Japanese. -- DandanxD 06:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, a member of the Korean wikipedia team saying that wikipedia is undoubtedly pro-Japanese and a member from the Chinese side saying that yes, Senkaku must be renamed. I'm not going to comment as to which is right, because as you'll see from my IP I'm in Japan, other than to say that me refraining is the right thing to do, and you guys should take note of that. I wonder if you guys agree on Kojoseon and Koguryo. 125.54.22.228 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing the name from Dokdo is a mistake – you cannot decide by vote what something is called. South Korea is in possession of the islands. Senkaku must NOT be renamed - Japan has it. This whole fiasco is absurd. Congrats to those responsible for this PC mess, you’ve just contributed to the weakness in the veracity of Wikipedia in general. Dprkstudies 12:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As a Korean, I think the name Liancourt Rocks have no influences to Korea and Korean people at all. Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks in En.) islets are obvious Korean territories, so the decision changes none of the facts except the English name for the islets in English Wikipedia. I am actually happy that the small Korean islets is getting a lot of attention from people around the world. Although I like the historical and original Korean name, Dokdo, better regardless of POV. Motivr 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the I don't understand the concept of Wikipedia NPOV section.
Here's how it works: If a naming follows Wikipedia policy then it is defacto NPOV. The names in English Wikipedia follow the most common use in English, particularly Encyclopedias, respected resources and news. (English use doesn't include 'The islands are called Dokto in Korea, Takeshima in Japan' etc.) Senkaku is used in respected sources, so is Liancourt Rocks. Therefore they are the correct NPOV names. 221.133.86.254 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The most common English name for these islets is "Dokdo". It is the name used by the governing authority South Korea. It is not any less NPOV than "Senkaku Islands". Language does not a matter in NPOV. Please be consistent and fair. Some of you are really showing your colors.-- 165.244.20.220 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Present description is follws.
In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do and asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets, was conquered and "re-integrated" into the Korean kingdom of Silla in 512.
Original text of Samguk Sagi is follows
十三年夏六月,于山國帰服,歳以士宜為貢于山國,在溟州正東海島,或名欝陵島,地方一百里,恃嶮不服,伊異斯夫,為何瑟羅州軍主,謂于山人愚悍難以威来,可以計服,乃多造木偶師子,分載戦船,抵其国海岸誑告白,汝若不服,則放此猛獣,踏殺之,國人恐懼則降
Which chinese character corresponds to "asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets"? This is a clear lie mistake. I think description of this article is further KPOV for several months. --
Opp2
08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Present description is follows
However, Korean scholars such as Professor Shin Yong-ha of Hanyang University argue against this by saying that Jukdo, as with Dokdo, is not only also rather small in size, but is even less noteworthy than Dokdo on a map due to its proximity to Ulleungdo, thus making it meaningless to draw it unto a map in the immediate presence of a much larger island while Dokdo, due to its distance, commands a greater need to be displayed on a cartograph to leave no ambiguity concerning the administrative control of the Korean government. Korean scholars also argue that there is little way to infer information from the depiction of minor islands on older drawings due to the fact that their shape is generally more or less the same (that is, all are miniature circles).
These are presumptions based on KPOV without evidence. Is such a long sentence necessary so that it may make an excuse for Korea why? I can offer the verification map like this [1] if there is a detailed image of these maps. I think that the reader only has to judge it from the verified map.-- Opp2 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
lions3639 wrote another article about the page move. 위키피디아 독도명칭 결국 변경 Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.30 17:08
Are those who were suspected sockpuppetry editing from their office? Jjok 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/30/2007053000903.html I read this news.
Liancourt Rocks? It is not POV.
locational name use their country's pronounciation. it is pov.
Dokdo is Korean territory. japanese opinion is not important. korean polices and civilian live their.
Korean make Korean territory's english name.
Liancourt Rocks???
Japanse call US as "rice country".
Korean call US as "beutiful country".
United State of America -> Rice country? United State of America -> Beutiful country?
It is POV? It is nonsense. it is joke...hahaha
-- WonYong ( talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This guy is the same one that posted this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Sovereigns_and_Five_Emperors "They are all Koreans" Stupid Korean Nationalist
See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. This will be presented to the closing admin User:Husond. ( Wikimachine 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
While I know it isn't general acceptable to change archieved pages, I am asking that the changes I made noting that I was cleared of the allegation of sockpuppetry be left alone. The allegations were made before the poll closed and took some time to clear myself and one other person. Although it does nothing for the outcome, it would be nice to think my voice counted for something. Especially since I had to argue to get myself cleared of wrongdoing. Davidpdx 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
These are geographic informations concerning Usando of a Chosun government. Official Record of Chosun concerning the geography of Usando is very few and valuable. However, these important information is not being written in a present article. I am very wondered.
Conference record(備辺司謄録) January 19, 1735
戊寅年間朝家送張漢相, 看審圖形以來, 而聞鬱陵島, 廣闊土沃, 曾有人居基址, 或有往來之痕, 其西又有于山島, 而亦且廣闊云矣
The Chosun government made 張漢相 investigate Ullengdo, and he saw the figure of Ullengdo. After that, Ullendgo has been heard a vast and fertile island. There are signs in the dwelling and traffic, too. In the west(of Ullengdo), there is Usando. It is said that this island is vast and fertile, too.
Investigation report of Ullengdo by 金履喬(May 12, 1807) [2]
北有于山島周回爲二三里
Usando is in the north (of Ullengdo). The circumference is 0.8km-1.2km.
Please teach if there is a reason not being described for such a valuable record. I will add to the article if there are no special question. By the way, Liancourt Rocks is neither the north nor the west of Ullengdo. Liancourt Rocks is small and not fertile.-- Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is kind of random, so I am just adding it here. So, I am very happy that the article is chosen to be called as Liancourt Rocks. But, is it both administered by Korea and Japan? It seems like so on the info box at the right. If not, then please change it. Amphitere 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Administered by Korea and claimed by Japan, similiar to Senkaku Islands if you ask me. Good friend100 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Any country is not doing now if your effective control means lawful administration. If your effective means the exercise of administration , It can be thought that both Japan and South Korea do. Because registration to the cadastre and taxation is considered exercise of administration on International Law, Japan also will be doing. -- Opp2 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie P148
First, it would be better if the principle were expressed as one of acquiescence, since, if a pierce of territory were occupied by an aggressor, the 'prescribing' state would have a peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but there would be no acquiescence. The second problem is to decide what suffices to prevent possession from being peaceful and uninterrupted. In principle the answer is clear: any conduct indicating a lack of acquiescence. Thus protests will be sufficient. In the Chamizal arbitration United states claimed, as against Mexico (SYC.) Furthermore, possession must be peaceable to provide a basis for prescription, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, diplomatic protests by Mexico prevented title arising. A failure to take action which might lead to violence could not be held to jeopardize Mexican rights.
TEXTBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by Martin Dixon
The exercise of state power over territory must be peaceful in the sense that it is not challenged by other states.
The Critical Date by L. F. E. Goldie
In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.
By the way, Japan is prohibiting landing on Senkaku. A provocative act like South Korea government is not done. Japan is doing the declaration to admit the compulsion jurisdiction of ICJ(International Court of Justice). Therefor, it is easier for South Korea and China to bring a case Japan to ICJ. It is difficult for Japan to bring a case them oppositely because neither South Korea nor China admit the jurisdiction of ICJ. South Korea and China say that we are a peaceful state. I really wonder about their insistences. -- Opp2 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What is if the exercises are nessesary? If Korea did not exercise its power on these islets, they belong fully to Japan by default. In that sense, Senkaku islands are different than Dokdo. Kingj123 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've re-reviewed the move proposal and decided not to overturn my second closure. Putting aside the reciprocal sockpuppetry accusations, I still find a majority of users asking for this article to be moved. The main argument backing "Liancourt Rocks" ( WP:NPOV) also seems to weigh more than the main argument backing "Dokdo" (rocks being in disputed possession of South Korea). This is my final decision and I shall not reopen this case, for the sake of my mental sanity. I'm not against further move proposals for this article in the near future though. -- Hús ö nd 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about "pro-Liancourt Rocks" voters being planted. Perhaps an investigation is warranted?-- 165.244.20.220 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, in websites like Wikipedia where anybody can enter freely, voting is not that effective. However, there is no way we can do better. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And before I step out of this, I would like to comment that many editors here are still confused about your decision and that there are other factors determining the vote and not just NPOV. Strictly speaking in NPOVness and NPOV only, Senkaku Islands should be moved too since it should stay analogous to this article. I have no idea why these two articles can have no relation. Good friend100 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand there was a complaint about the previous poll that no closing date was announced. There was none for this one either. And it was a much closer vote. Why aren't people up and arms about that? This was a very controversial move. I don't think it should have been moved without a two-thirds majority. Dubious, dubious, dubious.--
To me, it seems like just a popularity contest and one where mobilization may have taken place. I don't see the real rationale behind the move. What was the reason for a vote? Was there compelling evidence for re-examination of the decision made earlier when cool minds prevailed? I'd really like someone to explain the reason for the proposal of a poll. I just don't see it from reviewing the discussion and I'm very curious to know.-- 165.244.20.220 02:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue. The administerator moved the article without a good conclusion to the debate. Kingj123 02:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the purpose of having this talk page if explanations aren't going to be explained by even the admins? There is no consensus here and admin should respect the edit process instead of participating in double blind editing! melonbarmonster 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for the move? I don't get it. Also, shouldn't a move within less than six months require more than a slight majority? This poll was a total sham, in my opinion. And how exactly is "DOKDO" not acceptable as an English name while "SENKAKU ISLANDS" is?--
If you search "Dokdo", "Takeshima", and "Liancourt Rocks" on Google, the results come out like this: Dokdo (480,000), Takeshima (570,000), Liancourt Rocks (only 54,000). Tellingly, four of the first ten hits for Takeshima are restaurant reviews. It even says that the owners are Koreans.
Takeshima is also a last name and refers to many things. Dokdo by contrast can refer only to Dokdo Island. And unlike Takeshima, there are many possible spellings: Tokdo, Tokto, Tok Do, Dok Do, and on and on and on. There are even spellings that use little apostrophes and dashes. Takeshima on the other hand does not have this spellings problem.
Plug in: Dokdo OR Tokdo OR Tokto OR "Dok Do" OR "Tok Do". Now there are 640,000. You could add in even more variations but I figured these were the most common. And yes, all of the results (on the first page, I haven't clicked through all three billion pages yet) are relavant unlike with Takeshima. Jin29 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Takeshima" and "Tokto" (in any of its spellins) are controversial names: pro-Japanese people will favour "Takeshima", while pro-Korean people will favour "Tokto" (or any of its other spellings). However, "Liancourt Rocks" is neither Japanese nor Korean, so maybe that is a more neutral name?
I'm not sure that Google is very useful for determing the most common name in English. Searching for "Takeshima" or "Tokto" will not only find web pages in English, but also pages in French, German, Spanish etc. and you won't know how many of the results actually are in English. Even by limiting the language to English (using Google's search options) will yield lots of results in other languages, because many web pages have no or wrong language specifications. ( Stefan2 20:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
LOL then what's up with the Senkaku Island. Isnt this "pro-Japanese"? -- DandanxD 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
These sources are the most credible and authoritative references we have on the topic in my opinion rather than google searches, personal websites, encyclopedias, etc.. Perhaps those of you with access to academic research tools can do some searches for scholarly third party articles on this topic.
So far there are only 2 journal articles and both are pro-Korean. Some pro-Japanese and neutral articles would be helpful in our discussion:
melonbarmonster 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Usually, many academic journals are heavily affected by Japanese. Kingj123 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We have discussed the first article by Sean Fern a while ago. He tried to be neutral but he could not. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 8#Professor? Sean Fern I also want to ask his opinion on Rusk documents [4] and Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East [5]. Kalani O'Sullivan's new Dokto page seems here and well-updated. Jjok 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It has happened before and it will happen again. Somehow, some people feel that using a "native" name lends them authenticity and high moral ground. I have no idea why. This is English Wikipedia, not a soapbox. Some time ago, I tried to change Sinmiyangyo to a more common English name, a name that people could understand, and it led to an acrimonious exchange that prompted me to leave Wikipedia. As things stand now, Wikipedia is generating more text on talk pages than on the actual articles, and I think all of us should start to reconsider the value of these name-debates. Again, this is English Wikipedia. I will stay on the sidelines for the time being.-- Amban 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Do any of these maps contain Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima? As far as I can tell, they do not. If they don't, why are they here? Parsecboy 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Dokdo is there clearly, look again. Kingj123 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a map where an actual island was overlapped with Donguk jido of the map gallery. [16] I do not understand logic that the Usando on this map is Liancourt Rocks at all. -- Opp2 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have initiated a new discussion for renaming Senkaku Islands. If anybody is interested, please comment at the talk page [20]. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so there's no confusion, User:Jjok appended Sinmiyangyo at the end of the title of this section of the Talk page. I've only initiated a discussion at Senkaku Islands, and as far as I can remember, I have never edited or commented at Sinmiyangyo. I assume this means he plans on initiating a discussion at Sinmiyangyo. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought the whole thing was controlled by South Korea. What is "alternatively administered"? Is there actual Japanese administrative presence on the islands? -- PalaceGuard008 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Kingj123
13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The cadaster registration are administerative actions which is admited by the judicial precedent and Japan do. On International Law, it is accurate that South Korea is occupying and the sovereignty(contain administration) is not fixed. UN also say sovereignty is unsettled.-- Opp2 14:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Koreans are at least controlling the islets. Japanese cannot enter. How can a country administer when they can't even enter these rocks? Kingj123 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical?
Kingj123 14:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
... the discussion is getting sidetracked. the question is, what does everyone think about the term "alternatively administered"?
The article seems to indicate that Korea controls the islands, but Japan sometimes does surveys in the EEZ, is that right?
If that is the case, then incursions into the EEZ is not "administration", by the simple fact that the EEZ is not part of the territorial sea nor contiguous zone. Unless there is some evidence that Japan has some control over the land territory, the territorial sea (12 nm zone), or the contiguous zone (24 nm zone), then I don't think "alternatively administered" is justified. -- PalaceGuard008 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The Kyodo News reference(ref number 2 I think) is a Japanese news source that specficially states that the administration over islands is by Korea. Japanese administration or alternative administration is not even mentioned. Accordingly, I don't see a reason why this referenced fact should be left out. "Alternative administration" by Japan is just POV attempt at match tit for tat. It's unreferenced and doesn't belong. If anyone has references please provide it. Thanks. melonbarmonster 04:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See here, at Kuril Islands dispute. It is worded with "administered by Russia, but also claimed by Japan." Yet, Komdori is making no move to change this to "alternatively administered by Japan". I see this as POV pushing and simply Komdori's own POV against Korea. Good friend100 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets just use "administered" and "claimed" instead of "controlled" or "owned". I don't want another large fight about this. Good friend100 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
South Korea isn't communist and get your facts straight. The couple decided to live there, not because the government forced them to be there so South Korea can say "look theres civilians living on the islets its ours".
What do you mean by "village"? Certainly Japan must do some "paperwork" on Kuril islands if there are 30,000 people when it administers a piece of rock with 40 people on it. Its not "you might be right". Reuben is right in that most people dont go behind the scenes to check out whos doing what. South Korea administers the island but Japan also claims it. Thats about it. Good friend100 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The expression to disregard International Law cannot be allowed. -- Opp2 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass media etc.
I don't think anyone's claiming that Dokdo isn't claimed by Japan, controlled by SK, etc..
And Korea had all the right to defend it's own territory post WWII against Japanese encroachment on Dokdo. Japan's claims only go back to 1905 terra nullius claim which everyone knows was absolutely invalid due Korea's earlier claim and the fact that the claim was made under military coercion. SK doesn't even recognize Japan's claims of dispute.
As for the issue "administration", we have a Japanese new source that specifically states that the islands are administered by Korea! Provide references that oppose this or state that Japanese "alternatively adminsters these islands". melonbarmonster 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The term occupied territories (see that article) in general refers to regions distinct from the recognized territory of a sovereign state but which it controls, especially with military forces. Dokdo is disputed, not occupied. Get your facts right, Opp2. -- DandanxD 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And a lot of votes were tossed out on the Dokdo side while some dubious ones were left on the Liancourt Rocks side. This is a shameful episode in Wikipedia history. I can't believe the admins allowed this. I guess this place is totally full of pro-Japan people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.212.69.195 ( talk) 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) -- copied from Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11 by Nightshadow28 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the majority does not matter anyways. Kingj123 04:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop fiddling over this. Komdori and Endroit are obviously very smug about this and LactoseTI is praising the admin who moved this article. We can always move it back, stop talking about it and move on. Good friend100 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are 100 more votes required for Dokdo? Why are the requirements higher? Liancourt Rocks only had a thin margin for majority. I don't understand how this move could have happened when there was no clear consensus...-- 165.244.20.220 23:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The source assumed that SCAPIN677 is still effective is requested. I found the article on Korea Times about this theme. [26] This article is very interesting.
Korea Times
However, after the Napoleonic Wars, international law underwent a transformation, and “annexation” was no longer permitted.
There are scholars who are classifying annexation into the cession. Does the author say that the cession is unlawful? I do not know the scholar of International Law who assumes that the cession and annexation are unlawful.
Korea Times
- In the modern era, conquest must be followed by military occupation. The Hague Regulations (1907) specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
- In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest
To begin with, the conquest indicates the military subjugation and occupation. Does the author think that there is a peaceful conquest? The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) is a law of war. It provides for the administrate of occupied territories of the war. Most(all) scholars of International Law say that the conquest became illegal after WW1.
If the conquest is lawful, International Military Tribunal for the Far East clearly becomes unlawful.
Korea Times say
As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG).
What does USMG mean? U.S. army, occupation forces in Iraq or DoD? Were there two governments in the United States? Was the United States a divided country such as China and Taiwan? Which country has approved the USMG? Common sense was disregarded, and a very interesting insistence. However, grounds are uncertain.
Should I adopt this article as a citation? A lot of annotations and rebuttals will be needed for normal International Law if it adopts--
Opp2 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No
melonbarmonster
17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to administration, occupation, and control (which are all commonly used to mean the same thing, but with different connotations), how about saying that South Korea maintains a physical presence on the island? I think that states the matter succinctly, without shades of approval or disapproval. -- Reuben 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How can somebody get confused by reading "administered by Korea but also claimed by Japan"?. I'm sure most readers who search for this article are aware of the dispute. Good friend100 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "administration" is a simple enough word that readers and editors won't confuse it with "internationally recognized jurisdiction". Come on Komdori. melonbarmonster 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
They use "administered" for disputed territories. "Occupied" is correct since South Korea does occupy it, but it is probably considered too strong. Good friend100 18:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
All the terms on their own suffers from the same concerns I think. That's why I was going with "controlled and administered". melonbarmonster 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning was because "administration" alone doesn't imply control. Since both "administration" and "control" are supported by citations both were included to make it clear as possible. Occupied is also supported by citations. It's just a matter of agreeing upon which word(s) most clearly convey the status of these islands. melonbarmonster 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Claiming lack of consensus while giving specious arguments is really poor. Regardless of who does or doesn't agree, you're dissent loses meaning if you can't offer reason and evidence for your position. melonbarmonster 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I never encountered an "invisible argument" for the sake of a non-consensus claim before. That's kind of amusing. melonbarmonster 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Extra implications as in the presence? Senkaku Islands is similiary written. Good friend100 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So what "extra implications" does it have? It just sounds like you and Lactose are being difficult and claiming positions that doesn't exist for the sake of claiming lack of consensus. I've provided a Japanese news source that uses the word "administrated" to describe Korean control of Dokdo. If you believe otherwise you and Lactose are going to have to do better than just CLAIM "extra implication" or things "maybe" being different, etc..
Lastly, I waited 12 hours for feedback and comment before going ahead with the edit. You and Lactose are reverting back immediately and didn't start participating again only to justify your reverts. A little reciprocation of courtesy seems appropriate instead of immediate reverting. Cut the specious arguments and just be honest if you don't really have a reason for being against this. melonbarmonster 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) melonbarmonster 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with melonbarmonster. This article should be written like Senkaku Islands using "administered". It doesn't make sense how you simply try to change the wording here and not at Senkaku simply because you "aren't an expert on that topic". What "topic"? You don't need a "expert knowledge" to make Senkaku NPOV. Senkaku uses "administered" yet you do not even try to change "administered" there. I see this as POV.
Stop telling me to assume good faith. I have tried to assume good faith enough times. When CPOV editors call Koreans "ethnocentrists" and call wikipedia a "place for circlejerking for the Koreans", you don't even care. Yet when Dokdo or Goguryeo advocates do a bit wrong, you start exploding (ex. Wikimachine's tests which are retarded but your tests a fine). Good friend100 12:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia, the Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands in Japanese and Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese), which are effectively controlled by the Japanese but also claimed by the Chinese, are titled the "Senkaku Islands."
In the same encyclopedia, the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese), which are effectively controlled by the Koreans but also claimed by the Japanese, are titled the "Liancourt Rocks."
This makes me wonder if consistency is valued in English Wikipedia. I think this article should be titled "Dokdo" for the sake of fairness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.111.214.149 ( talk • contribs)
The Chinese page has Dokdo(獨島) with the French (despite Liancourt being a French name), Lithuanian and Finnish pages. German, Spanish and Indonesian displays Dokdo as "Liancourt Rocks" and no foreign language Wikipedias have the article named in the Japanese-form (except Japan). As for your question, Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) is administered by Korea but claimed by Japan since 1901. -- DandanxD 14:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As Parsecboy noted, these pictures are a little less than clear as to what is going on in them. Perhaps we could discuss how they should be modified or at least what captions they should have. --Cheers, Komdori 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And don't take off the template, discuss first. Good friend100 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Japanese map, Korean Busan is included as well. Why is that? Kingj123 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)'
It is necessary to describe both insistences of Japan(Usando is Jukdo or fabled Ulleungdo) and Korea(Usando is Liancourt Rocks) for NPOV. Both insistences are so much the better if comparable on the map like this [29].-- Opp2 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map. [30] According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (竹島/独島関係 史・資料目録, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane) [31], it is one of 『朝鮮與地全図』 (Chōsen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by 関口備正? and published in 1875 (明治8年) by 山城屋佐兵衛, 大蔵孫兵衛, and 朝倉屋久兵衛 (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14′N, 131°52′E (Liancourt Rocks, リアンコヲルトロックス) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You guys should check the 3RR incident board today and see all the reports both sides are throwing at each other.
Somebody threatened me to file a report that I am a sockpuppet. Melonbarmonster is repeatedly asking LactoseTI to stop stalking but LactoseTI doesn't seem to care.
Can we all get along and stop doing this to each other? I'm getting sick of this. Why can't we just edit articles like we used to? Good friend100 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic... Why was a poll held? What was the compelling evidence or theory that prompted it? The last time it looks like the issue was discussed calmly and there was consensus among regular contributors. AND most importantly, there was a real reason for reexamining the title. Can someone explain to me why there was a move this time? Or why there was even a poll? It seems like a hasty and unjustified move. Nobody seems to be explaining the reason why a poll was held and why the page was re-titled...-- 222.233.205.82 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The move was sudden and wasn't fair on both sides. There were socks on both sides of the poll. What really got the attention of the admin was when Komdori introduced a Korean article that discussed about wikipedia and Dokdo and the poll. I doubt that Koreans would come here and screw things up. In fact, I think that a sockpuppet was made to have the same name of the author who wrote the article so the Korean side just looks bad.
If true, thats dirty playing in my viewpoint.
We can always move it back so I'm not too worried. Good friend100 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You think I'm whining that Wikipedia isn't fair? I think Husond made a good decision, considering what he was exposed to when he first reviewed the poll.
I have had enough of assuming good faith from some of the editors here and CPOV editors at Goguryeo. I am not saying that Wikipedia isn't fair and I'm not whining that somebody else started it. I'm pointing out the fact that you are POV and your actions are clear enough to assume that. Good friend100 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Since so many people are confused, I'll explain my view of what happened. Komdori and Macgruder wanted the article to go back to Liancourt Rocks, but since the poll prior to the last already contained Liancourt Rocks as a candidate, and it failed, they needed to find another reason to make a move request. And in process of blindly groping for new arguments, they brought in the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo - this they used to open a hole to spill in all the other alternatives & begin another poll. Once I agreed that the "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo was something new & therefore agreed for a new move proposal, Komdori, who didn't firmly advocate his choices but merely complained POV, went for Liancourt Rocks, while Macgruder went for "Takeshima/Dokdo" combo. Ok. Something that really gets me mad is that these "NPOV" rule-abiding Wikipedians played on with so much indirect bigotry, personal attacks, and manipulation of data, etc., that every time they tell others to maintain good faith or control themselves, etc., I see them as complete hypocrites & their acts as signs of complete arrogance. (So, anybody who tells others to remain in good faith or remain calm automatically go onto my red list. The sad thing is that this atmosphere became an inherent part of the Wikipedia culture.) For example, when my data clearly shows that Dokdo dominates over the other 2 main options completely in these xxx searches, they gave really ambiguous, stupid, and very arguable reasons why it might be inaccurate, and they give their own searches that are even more flawed than mine. And when I point these flaws, they give really stupid reasons on why they don't matter. And because they talk really ambiguously and pushes their way into a lot of stuff, I am forced to talk into even the smallest things. And then LactoseTI comes in & tells me to not talk about those trivial matters. During all these talks, the discussion fills with my defenses and their offenses. Because they call even the most accurate searches false & they write that all over the place, admins & outside readers think so too. In the end, like some Wiki critics say, those who talk the most get their wish true in Wikiepdia. ( Wikimachine 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
You've said that at least 3 times already. Good friend100 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with what Husond said. "Article to stay at Liancourt for now". =) Good friend100 11:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Present article is being written as a fact that Ahn Yong-bok went to Edo and received Kanpaku's(shogunate's) note. However, it cannot be confirmed that he met the shogunate and even he went to Edo(Tokyo) where shogunate was living in the record of Japan. [33] Therefore, there are few Japanese scholars who thinks Kanpaku's note was fact. Even Prof. Naito who is insisting Takeshima is South Korea territory is denying this note as Ahn's lie.
もちろん、安龍福が述べているように、鳥取から江戸に送られ、幕府が審問した上で、鳥取藩主が鬱陵島は朝鮮領であるとする書経を安龍福に与えたなどというのは、全て安龍福の作り話である(Of course, it is all fictions by Ahn that he was sent to Edo from Tottri and after shogunate's interrogation the load of Tottori clan gave the treaty which described that Ullengdo is Chosun territory.) [34] pp.9
Therefore, present article is KPOV. It is necessary to retouch. -- Opp2 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
issues of present article about 1693 visit
<present article>
In the spring of 1693 in the 19th year of King Sukjong about 40 Korean fisherman from Tongnae and Ulsan clashed with the Otani and Murakami fishermen at Ulleung-do. The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and taken to the lord of Okinoshima. The lord of Okinoshima soon found the case outside his official competency and sent Ahn to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu (modern-day Shimane Prefecture). Ahn was then taken to Edo, where the Kanpaku (Imperial regent) of the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleungdo as Korean territory. Ahn was in possession of the note until he was seized en route to Korea by the lord of Nagasaki, where it was confiscated and he was held on the grounds of trespassing onto Japanese territory.
<issues>
I drew the Ahn's movement route in Japan in the map. [35] This map is based on this thesis. [36]-- Opp2 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Amendment bill about 1693 visit
reference:竹島(鬱陵島)をめぐる日朝関係史p61-119 by prof. Naito Seityu.
Please correct my poor English. -- Opp2 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't change parts of the article (as you did) without a proper discussion. -- DandanxD 14:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |