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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
-- Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?
I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikimachine, I understand that in this recent edit of yours you switched the entire opening section with an alternative version which you have been building in your user section. You could have easily guessed that such a major change would be controversial. Perhaps your suggested changes should be submitted for discussion in smaller fragments, on this talk page first, rather than the whole opening section in one go. Phonemonkey 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What source? All I see is a link to the image, and has nothing about "Argonaut" or whatever. I deleted it because its poorly sourced. Just shooting back what you shot at me. Good friend100 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe we need to make it less POV by adding some Korean references, hmm? Opp2 has geared all his nonsense proposals based on "NPOV, the Japanese side must be stronger here". Its too bad for him and any other JPOV here that Liancourt is regarded as Korean territories by almost all other countries and the fact that they only needed was the move from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt" to show that is disputed. Its clear that there are more evidence that Korea asserts their right over the islets. Are you going to deny that and try to tone down everything as much as you can? Sorry, but thats only going to get you in more arguments. Poor english doesn't help either and I'm totally disgusted with miscommunication on both sides (lol especially here). Good friend100 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for political debate, just stating the facts. So am I wrong about more claims from Korea? Adding a couple maps that support Korea's position isn't the end of the world, but for some JPOV editors it is, and they must rush to change it using WP:NPOV to make their edits justified. Good friend100 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I only described the interpretation of Japan as "Japanese argue". I have not been written that this Japan claim is true. If "Interpretation" should be deleted, it is necessary to delete the map. Because it is an interpretation of Korea that makes the island in this map Liancourt Rocks. It becomes KPOV. After all, you are insisting that interpretation of Korea is NPOV and true, and the interpretation of Japan is JPOV and nonsense. -- Opp2 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In general (this applies to arguments throughout the article) there are quite a few instances of "Japan argues this" and "Korea argues this," but what it really comes down to is that "some editor thinks it makes sense to argue this." My suggestion for the maps is that we dump any map that doesn't have cited sources up to Wikipedia standards discussing it. Perhaps a better idea might be to nix the gallery and make a new section or subsection discussing arguments based on maps. A gallery really doesn't give enough space to describe the rationales. Any map that people use in respectable sources for presenting arguments certainly has a heft bit of text associated with it. Any other thoughts? — LactoseTI T 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I will not comply with your ROGUE rules unless you participate in this discussion w/ equal consideration on both sides & you are willing to respond to ppl's questions. You're responsible for what you've said & meddled with. ( Wikimachine 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
I realize some people might get excited about this, but I don't believe the term East Sea should be used in this article at all. The proper place to make the point that Koreans call it that is on the Sea of Japan naming dispute page. You'll note that the link East Sea itself redirects to Sea of Japan. This article shouldn't take sides on the name of the sea at all. Alexwoods 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good friend, please follow the rouge rules; surely you realized those would be controversial changes.
I suggest we add the sourced material back as well as remove your unsourced statements (unless in the meantime perhaps you can find some sources). — LactoseTI T 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't take sides. Opp's sources are just as well biased, coming from a Japanese site (which we cannot verify), not to mention some Japanese professor who wrote his claims. See WP:V. I doubt that Opp's sources are going to stay there longer. Good friend100 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I gave you this site [4], only thats its obviously written from the Korean view. Good friend100 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of these sources are meaningless and therefore the additions are too. Get the sources, discuss then add. Until then remove these recent additions, because they are in essence POV. Relating something to the French claim over some other islands is original research too. Macgruder 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to maintain balance, I propose you adding the following description , how is it?
United States opinion about this issue
- The US special mission ambassador James A. Van Fleet was reported to the US President Dwight Eisenhower that the Liancourt Rocks dispute should be solved through the ICJ.(See Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East)
-- Watermint 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
These are sources concerning ICJ.
The United States agreed to the reference to ICJ. However, USA was feared that Japan escalated to the UNSC resolutions when South Korea refused. At that time, it is an age of the cold war. USA wanted to avoid the fight between her allies. I think that we should delete the part of ICJ. Because it is extremely a political matter.-- Opp2 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Following is a sources from the point of International Law.
ICJ holds no jurisdiction over the territorial disputes. It is an option if disputing parties volunteer to enter its dispute to the ICJ. Korea's official position is that no international dispute exists since the territory is under Korea control and its de facto rule is not in dispute.
In spite of all the Japanese POV pushing on Wikipedia, anyone with any access to academic journal search engines will find that almost all legal literature on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute sides with the Korean side. melonbarmonster 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How is the section of ICJ done? It is necessary to point out the violation of Charter of the United Nations based on the above thesis if Japan claim add to the part. Though I am good even so, Korean will not be able to endure emotionally rather than logical. Therefore, I think that we should delete the section of ICJ. -- Opp2 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from being inflammatory and petty, your change removed a sourced statement without explanation, and rearranged the content so that the statement can't be reintroduced. It doesn't make logical sense to say who occupies the islands until we know who claims them. I am going to revert the change. This article is on the verge of being locked and any change should be amply backed up on the talk page. Alexwoods 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Now I've had to block three editors in a row, all apparently from the same side of the dispute (which one was that again? I keep mixing them up. Oh yes, the Korean one, I suppose). Wikimachine, Good friend, and now Melonbarmonster. People will no doubt conclude I'm biased. I swear by everything that's good and holy that I'm not. It's really not my fault if one side sticks by the rules and the other doesn't. :-( Anyway, please continue the constructive discussion here, the rest of you. My personal recommendation would be to leave those naming and ordering details for later though, and concentrate on the core issue of how best to present the competing arguments. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Choosing a policy that puts Japan first is pointless in resolving this dispute just like a policy that puts Korea first is pointless. There is no clear, easy way of resolving this. One will have to be in front of the other in order. The best we can do is to word the text so that order is a moot issue. Also, order becomes a relevant issue when Japanese editors systematically change the order in the text which is what happened and what I tried to repair. The same would apply if Korean editors also did this.
On whether to state the occupation first or the dispute first, the status of occupation should be stated first because that's just undisputed fact. The reasonable thing here is to just state objective status of island and then go into the dispute. Starting out by wording the dispute is POV. melonbarmonster 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hard to assume good faith here when Japanese POV editors like Komdori have clearly gone through and placed "Japan" before "Korea" and now pretend to claim a fair principle is at work here. melonbarmonster 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is definitely not neutral. We should tag this article "neutrality disputed" before we do anything else. Kingj123 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But, you cannot just ignore neutrality just because you can't accomplish it forever. Kingj123 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that this rule is effective now. There are uncooperative editors who edits continuousry without discussing. And, the accomplished fact of the edit is justified. The opinion of man who tries to keep the rules is not reflected when there is no penalty for such uncooperative editors. Even if we want to discusses about rivert, it is difficult to take the consensus because uncooperative editors don't participate in the discussion. -- Opp2 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've finally corrected the historical inaccuracy from your 1667 Saito Hosen's Report on Oki.
Before it read as follows:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan
The last line is wrong. It was misinterpreted to mean Matsushima (Ulleungdo) was the boundary of Japan. First in 1667 Ulleungdo was called Takeshima, second the last line actually states this "州" (prefecture) is the boundary of Japan. NOT Matsushima
However now it reads:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this prefecture (Oki) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Here are my citations.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
See pages 37 and 38 of this document.
http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf
The next citation was published in the Spring 1998 Edition of the Korean Observer by Han Key Lee. The related text is on page 10. I quote:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two island are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus the island (s} marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. "...Here 此州 (thus or the island or these islands as sinitic characters can be used either as singular or plural) is erroneously interpreted as the "two islands." This can be rightly interpreted as denoting Oki making the northwestern boundary of Japan..."
Han Key Lee's article can be found here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm
The other published citation was written by a Japanese man named Hideki Kajimura. The reference to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki is on page 16. I quote. " The above mentioned expression in the Records on Observations in Oki Province should be interpreted as expressing Oki Island as the boundary of Japanese territory , as the Korean side points out...." Hideki Kajimura's publication called "The Question of Takeshima Dokdo can be viewed here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
All of these citations are from published articles. Clownface 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you read wikipedia's own current citation in use for this reference it also concurs with the links I've given. I'm just saying use the information already cited.
Read wiki's citation number 36 below.
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Oki marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Opp, what good is it to post links to information in Japanese text? Clownface 12:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Wikimachine More later. ( Wikimachine 13:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
adding source Wikimachine mentioned in talk page, separating out into ICJ section based on Good friend's earlier suggestion Thanks for being more open, LactoseTI. ( Wikimachine 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Why do you keep adding this source ( kimura.gif) to the article? This only leads to an image of the map itself, and is not a good source. I removed it. Good friend100 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring up the topic of the administration box in the article. Japan does not administer the islets. We've fought over this before and the initial argument of the JPOV editors was that Japan "did paperwork" on the islets, which justified them putting it up. Also, they made a ridiculous claim that if the article presents that only Korea administers the islets, then it is biased. This isn't true. No media or internet articles say that Japan administers the islands too. This is simply a distortion of the definition of "administer" by several editors. Good friend100 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My own way would be to axe out the Japanese inclusion of administration because Japan does not administer the islets. Again, I'm going to mention that the article will present itself as being controlled by Korea, there isn't some magic way to make it word for word neutral.
There are several sites and maps that don't mention Japan as administering the islets. The infobox is simply a fabrication by pro-Japan editors.
I doubt that we will agree to a new infobox. I think we should just remove the entire section, if pro-Japanese editors can't live with my edit request. Good friend100 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm no, Lactose, simply because Japan enters waters near Liancourt doesn't mean they administer it. They think they do by entering the waters and when they did, that was a while back. South Korea doesn't let them come near the islets and if they do, they send out military boats. Japan only thinks they administer it, they don't. Its true that they can't do anything but paperwork on it. If they administer it, can they land on Liancourt and make a bunch of measurements on it? No. Thats your own OR. Good friend100 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well nobody's talking. I just don't want it to say Japan "administers" because it isn't true. Good friend100 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Dokdo Center, which is used as a source for this edit is a pressure group. While I find their analysis of the Korean governments motives interesting, I am concerned that this source falls under the definition of a self-published source. Perhaps you could find similar analysis in a reliable third party source? Phonemonkey 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ok, ok, do whatever you want with it I'm not going to sweat over it. Maybe I'll look for another source, christ. Good friend100 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100, I have about a billion ton of sources saved @ my hard drive. You might want them. If you want, I could send them over e-mail. ( Wikimachine 01:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
Does Good friend100 want to prove South Korea is running away from ICJ? In that case, I also agree. However, the source that he presented is unrelated to the content of the description(official claim). [14] This article points out that the activity in the waters doesn't become the title(ownership) of territory at Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953). And, the setting of EEZ doesn't become the title(ownership) of Liancourt Rocks. It is not an article about official claim.-- Opp2 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we stop all editing on this article & wait for the arbitration committee to specify the basis for NPOV in this article.
That is, whether Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island disputed by Japan, or Japanese island disputed by Korea, or an island of truly ambiguous ownership and of Korea's illegal/illegitimate control.
This will answer all questions to the arrangement of the info box, the wording of the intro, and several more issues. The JPOV has used NPOV as leverage to push their JPOV views on an issue that really favors South Korea. ( Wikimachine 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I really don't understand why you believe the general Wikipedia community to have a pro-Japanese bias; virtually nobody in the world has ever heard of Liancourt/Dokdo/Takeshima and is extremely unlikely to even remotely care which country those oceanic pebbles belong to. And surely the definition of consensus on Wikipedia is a community view which should be respected as such, whether or not you disagree. In any case, I think if there is to be an RfC, there is a simple way around this issue - we can replace the names of the countries Korea and Japan with "country X" and "country Y". So we can phrase it like this, and ask the community to decide which of these three statements are the most NPOV:
This leaves no space for a (frankly ludicrous and totally unfounded) accusation of inherent bias in the wider community. Phonemonkey 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no previously standing framework to determine the degree of prescription & description (i.e. basis of NPOV), let's make the framework be made in process of proactive and reactive submission of ev. For example, if one was to introduce a list of reliable newspapers for a certain POV, then it would be implied that a list of non-reliable newspapers would be needed. If the ev. in the whole do not indicate favor for one over the other clearly, then we'd need Rfc to decide on the basis of NPOV. This shouldn't be user-centered ev. but a collective jumble of ev. ( Wikimachine 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Very good, Lactose, and where do we arrive again after circling around? The basis for NPOV! We can't cooperate unless we determine the basis for NPOV & I love how Phonemonkey turns his back whenever the situation poses risks for the lifeline of his POV edits on the talk page.
Also I'm confident that the arbitration will determine the basis for NPOV b/c it has very much to do with user behavior - whether or not the JPOV has used NPOV to overly emphasize JPOV. ( Wikimachine 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
I've updated some 17th Century historical information to this page
In 1695 the Shogunate inquired to Dottori (Shimane Prefecture) if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Inbashu or Hoki districts where the Oyas and Murakawas of Yonago resided. The Shogunage inquired: Since when has Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Inaba District (因幡)and Hoki District (伯耆), become under these two's jurisdiction? Is it before or after the year 1632, when the ancestors was given land? Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction?
Dottori (Shimane) replied: Takeshima does not belong to Inaba District (因幡) nor Hoki District (伯耆). There are no other islands belonging to the two districts including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)
Here are the citations.
http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf See page 38.
The next citation is from Hoon Lee's article found here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm See pages 13 and 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you cut the following sentences?
Do you understand the feudalism of Japan at that time? It is not possible to extract it like this if you know. Oki island is not land of the Tottori clan. Takeshima and Matsuhima is not land of the Tottori clan too. It is land where only the take a passage was permitted by the shognate. It is natural that these islands are not Tottori clan's land because shogunate's land. -- Opp2 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, I just had the document translated and posted it. It is free of POV. If you have another translation please post it and cite it. Just because a piece of historical evidence damages your lobby campaign is no excuse for you to blubber and try to inject unrelated data.
The 17 Century voyages of the Murakawas and Oyas departed from Yonago in Hoki District this is historical fact. The Japanese argue the Shogunate bestowed Takeshima and Matsushima to these families but we can see this is false. Oki Island is a non-issue here.
BTW your maps below have to be corrected Opp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Clownface 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp,if you have another version of this document, translate it and cite it. I've given two published citations for this document above. It is a critical piece of data. You have no right to remove it. Clownface 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I will ribart it. After the discussion, this record might be added.-- Opp2 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no another version. You only cut the part to which the take a passage permission had been licensed by the shogunate. [15]-- Opp2 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, there was nothing "altered" in my translation. Although there is other data related to Takeshima on this document I only posted the passages related to territorial ownership of the islands. Do you want to post the whole document? If so, I agree. That's fair right?
Opp, again if you have a cited translation of your own please post a link and translation and we can compare. Be reasonable.
This document is a vital part of Korea's stance on Japan's historical relationship with Takeshima and Matsushima. As I've linked above North Gyoengsan Province official stated this position, it's just as credible as any publication from Shimane Prefecture you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not discuss it like this. And,Your edit is POV(an important part is cut). First of all, I will rivert.-- Opp2 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, get another version of this critical information, cite it or leave it alone. It stays. Clownface 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, English please. Clownface 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, I agree with Goodfriend. Opp, it's not your job to censor relevant historical data on this forum. If you have something to add, get an credible source to cite in English (as I have) so we can verify it's accuracy. Then edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this [17] Good friend100 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Japan's Report on Chosun as been added with JPOV. It reads. In 1869 a the new Meiji government sent a Japanese diplomatic mission to Korea to gather information and establish relations. Their report included information about Takeshima and Matsushima. It reads as follows:
竹島松島朝鮮附屬 "How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima became Korean Possessions: Matsushima (松島) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (竹島) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this island. 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s but it now has become uninhabited..
Some Japanese scholars contend the Matsushima (松島) in this document refers to a different island due to possible mapping errors of this era.
This information was found in a publication called "The Japanese Percpetion of Tokdo During the Opening of Ports"
Found here. See pages 7~8
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm Clownface 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some relevant images to add to this page. Any tips on how to do this? Clownface 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Japan's military involvement in the annexation process of Liancourt Rocks.
These images of Liancourt Rocks are from Japan's Historical Archives and detail the military activities of the Japanese Imperial Navy before and after Japan's incorportation of Takeshima. Korea asserts Japan seized Liancourt Rocks during the Russo~Japanese war of 1904~1905 and these maps detail this process. Over the next while I hope to improve the content of the data from this era.
Image one. Vice Commander Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks for the purpose of constructing watchtowers on November 20, 1904 this was about three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map2.jpg
This map shows the Japanese Navy's underwater telegraph systems installed all around Korean coastal areas and islands and China's Liandong Peninsula during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. You can see Dokdo was integrated within Japan's
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-telegraph2.jpg
This version of the same map is labelled in English.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg
I feel these maps are a great addition and have never been made widely available before. Let's put them up. Clownface 10:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the facts surrounding each map are mentioned in the published article called "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into its Territory in 1905" by Japanese Professor Kazuo Hori.
Kazuo Hori's article can be found here. The related information is found on page 17. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
Here is the relevant quote:
"On November 13, 1904, the Japanese Naval General Staff ordered the warship Tsushima to inspect the Liancourt Island/Tokdo and see whether it was suitable for the installation of a telegraphic station (not radio station) there.It was a survey to examine whether it was possible to build a watchtower there to be linked by submarine cable with Ullungdo. The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government. The Tsushima' s captain reported that although there was some topographical difficulty, it was possible to build a structure on the East Islet..."
If you look at the first map you can see the name of the Vice Commander Yamaka "山中少佐"written on the map of Liancourt itself. The legend shows the locations of water sources and also shows the range of visibility from each peak. I've drawn a legend on a copy of the same map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map.jpg
The documents that accompany these maps are translated on my website page. Of course it is my original research but you may find it interesting.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The related data for the second map is found on the same page of Kazuo Hori's article it reads:
"The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the sea battle, and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima/Tokdo on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by submarin cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island. These were illegal military facilities without regard to national boundaries..."
This map has the date written on it as the 38th year of Meiji (1905) June 1st on the left side of the map. Lactose it should be noted, Japan did not follow through on this plan but rather opted to bypass Oki Island and lay underwater telegraph cables directly from Dokdo to Matsue. An original map of that plan labelled in English is here.
It is possible to post these maps myself or is that right reserved for wiki?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wonson-telegraph-line4.jpg Clownface 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, the issue here is whether the maps I've posted are accurately described which they are. This Korean document gives an accurate detail and timeline of Japan's activities on Dokdo and the Korean peninsula.
http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html Clownface 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Clownface, please feel free to include these materials in the text. They are well referenced and very informative.
Opp2, you keep harping on international law even though it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. I'd love to discuss International law however if you feel it's relevant to the discussion. melonbarmonster 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster and Opp2. I didn't post the text above to amend the text of the Liancourt Rocks page. I posted this information for historical background to the maps above. It is the maps that are very critical and I feel should be presented here.
I agree with with Opp's opinion regarding the usage of "annexation" or "illegal" because it is Kazuo Hori's opinion. I will add the historical information of Japan's military activities as free of POV as possible in the near future with the consent of those on this forum.
Again, does wikipedia only post maps or can I edit the map gallery and add them myslef? I tried already......and failed.
Gettystein the articles above are published articles of with credible historical dates and even original Japanese transcripts to verify them. If you have information to the contrary please feel free to post other materials to contradict them. Clownface 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with all of your addition. All the citation which you presented are written in Korean language. Many people cannot verify whether your translation is right. Actually, Opp2 mentioned your misunderstanding already. As other example, your quote said that "The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government", but it is a clearly fault. Because, the first survey of Japanese government (Meiji period) was conducted by Japanese Naval ship
Amagi by order of a diplomat
Terashima Munenori in July 1880. Therefore, I think your immediately major edits should be remove from contents cause the reliability of presented citation is doubtful.
By the way, why do you add to the contents although you have not reached a consensus? -- Gettystein 07:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Amagi didn't survey Liancourt Rocks Gerrystein, the Amagi surveyed Matsushima (Ullengdo) The Tsushima did a detailed topogroaphic survey of Liancourt Rocks for building watchtowers and concluded the East Islet was suitable for watchtowers. Clownface 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the diff. None of the edits are explained. Unilateral changes to the infobox which are still being discussed, addition of uncited comments about the S Korea's refusal to take the case to the IJC - if these are not explained here then these edits will be reverted. Unilateral removal of Japanese maps with no explanation is vandalism and should be reverted. Phonemonkey 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to old version cause we have never heard explain from Wronglong.-- Watermint 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added and cited Korea's documented complaints by local, central governments and media.
Upon learning the Japanese had incorporated Liancourt Rocks, Ulleungdo Governor Shim Heung Taek sent the following memorandum to the central government on Lunar March 5th 1906: "Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp'o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory..."
Afterwards the Daehan Governor Responded:
"Order No.3 by the Daehan Empires Governor I have read this report. Their word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people...."
The Korean newspaper Daehan Maeil Shinbo also sharply criticized the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima on May 1st 1906 stating:
"The Domestic Affairs office stated "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleungdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking...."
This is again cited from Kazuo Hori's publication. The relevent text is found on pages 21 and 22. Clownface 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
I've added this text and a header to give historical background and a brief timeline of the Japanese Navy's Involvement on Liancourt Rocks.
On February 8th 1904 the Japanese Navy opened a surprise attack on Russian boats Varyag and Korietz anchored in Chemulpo (Incheon). Their troops continued to advance into Seoul and after weeks of continued intimidations and coercion the Koreans signed the February 24th, Japan-Korea Protocol. The protocol allowed the Japanese to occupy strategic areas of Korea.
Immediately the Japanese Army and Navy began constructing military observation and communications posts on all strategic coastal and island locations of Korea. These areas included: Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Palpo, Wonsan, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, and Pusan.
On September 25th 1904 the Japanese Warship Niitaka was involved in telegraph construction on Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and reported "...Korean's call Liancourt Rocks Dokdo and Japanese fishermen call them Riangko.." It was also reported that "..the East Islet was low and flat, thus suitable for constructing military buildings..."
The Japanese Warship Tsushima was issued special directive #276 on November 13th 1904. It included three instructions: a)Inform of the test of the wireless telegraph communications of Takasaki Mountain along with the test technician. b)Survey Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo Island) for its suitability for telegraph installation (not wireless telegraph) c)Dispatch workers and materials for Matsushima, (Ulleungdo) Jukpyeon, and Cape Ulsan watchtowers.
On the morning of November 20th 1904 Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Tsushima surveyed Liancourt Rocks and concluded with some difficulty a watchtower could be constructed on Liancourt's East Islet. His survey of Liancourt Rocks was forwarded to the Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department on January 5th of 1905.
The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the infamous Battle of Tsushima and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by underwater cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island.
Citations here. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html
Related material from Peter Duus' "The Abacus and the Sword" was also added. 124.80.111.109 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.80.111.109 ( talk) 08:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this, but the JPOV has attempted to make Liancourt Rocks "more theirs" by pushing for "J before K, alphabetic order" which doesn't apply at all to any of the article body. The admin himself is POV. When ppl complain about this, these ridiculous ppl go "so what, not a big deal". Well if it's not a big deal for us, it's not big for you either. Whether or not you assert that this is the Wikipedia policy (which absolutely is not), if there are ppl who perceive this as POV, you have to step back & fix it. Again, I'll put all of these to the Arbitration Committee. ( Wikimachine 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
I proposed that this part of the template be deleted as a whole, but now the thread is dead so I'm making a new one. I'm still thinking that it should be all deleted. Good friend100 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep it but reworded - it's to label the box "claimants" (as opposed to "administration"), and to put S Korea first with a label "current control". This way we can avoid the use of the word "administration" since it is this word seems to be the root of the issue (although personally I don't see the problem with Future Perfect's trial version). Phonemonkey 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to note that this might look all neat & nice but I think that our good old JPOVs here want to prescribe that the island's ownership status is truly ambiguous. I do not see S. Korea as simply a claimant. Again, if we were to discuss about the degree of prescription/basis for NPOV, we would not have any trouble on this, but I'll wait until the arbitration is finished. ( Wikimachine 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
That isn't prescribing. If South Korea has a stronger claim than Japan, its going to show up in the article. If you're not happy, then wikipedia isn't the place for you.
@Phonemonkey if you really feel that we shouldn't delete it, then your proposal is what I like best. Good friend100 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Lactose - I don't think the administrative region information should be dumped, because (as you pointed out before) that's essentially the whole reason why the infobox exists - remember, we're only "artificially" avoiding the word "administration" in this particular instance because agreeing to an exact definition of the word is proving troublesome, but the nature of the infobox is still the same. As for the issue of which country should come first, if you apply the "common sense order" as proposed by Mcgruder in the section above, I feel it's only natural to put the current controlling power first. What do you think? Phonemonkey 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, realise that Lactose has his share of personal attacks. A couple weeks ago, he suggested that I was paranoid and told me to look it up in Wikipedia. Can't seem to find the comment though. His insults are very camoflauged, but you can pick them out. Good friend100 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it not a neutral description to say that the rocks are claimed by S Korea and Japan, that S Korea is currently in control of it, and that the rightful ownership of the islets are in dispute? Phonemonkey 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a double map image in the map gallery. In addition there are empty spaces with no images. Can the fine folks at wiki clean house or can posters here simply delete these areas? 124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering setting up a gallery with Dokdo related images such as photos of the island and related historical documents. If anyone has any ideas or anything to contribute please do. 124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a photo? That could be a useful inclusion in this article. JPBarrass 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again everyone. I've contacted Professional photographer Kim Cheol Hwan here in Korea because he has taken some images I'm interested in.
The first is a picture of Dokdo from Korea's Ulleungdo Island.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo.jpg
The next is a picture of Ulleungdo Island from Dokdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulleung.jpg
I'll put them up as soon as I've been given permission. BTW how do I verify this? Clownface 05:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question.
Why is the information bar in the ariticle Zen not in alphabetical order, but the information bar of this article is in alphabetical order? (If the argument is going to be about: Zen is innately Japanese, then pleas do not even start it. Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea. Registration, and majority agreements are not the same). If we are really talking about NPOV, then let's make it fair for all articles. I apologize for the interruption in the middle of The Argument. Thank you. Amphitere —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just goes to show how biased Wikipedia is... The changing of the name to "Liancourt Rocks" is the first step in it eventually being called "Takeshima". These islets are obviously Korean and currently administered by South Korea. So why don't the South Koreans have a right to name them as they wish? I wish rules were applied fairly here. But clearly they are not. This really tarnishes the image of the site.-- 116.37.83.152 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The rules are not applied fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.244.40.243 ( talk) 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out the article Senkaku Islands. -- Kingj123 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kingj123 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
also you have to consider how long that particular order has been in place. Sennen goroshi 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not obvious bias, and consensus is required (especially in this article, due to its past history) unless it is obvious vandalism. And please assume good faith and steer clear from personal insults in the talk pages. I don't try to 'keep a hold on' any articles, in this case it seems obvious, A-Z, J is before K - therefore a simple alphabetical order is best...it is not as if there is an order of importance implied by the order, is there? Sometimes I wonder why people consider it to mean anything, if one country is listed before another...seems a little petty to me. Sennen goroshi 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned that a simple alphabetical order works the best. If it doesn't mean anything but a simple alphabetical order, why is it a problem for you if we use alphabetical order for Senkaku Islands? You are contradicting yourself... aren't you? Kingj123 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
if there was a long history of alphabetical order on that article, and you were merely reverting to that order, then of course it would be OK. But that is not the case, you would change the order on that article, merely to prove a point, which is not constructive editing. Edits should be done to improve wikipedia, that should be your only motive in editing, you would change that article, mainly because you wish to prove a point, because you dont like the order in this article. If an article has a long standing history of using a certain order, perhaps you should respect the previous editors a little more, and obtain some form of consensus before making changes. Please dont use wikipedia to prove a point, there are more suitable places for proving points, and pushing POV, such as chatrooms or myspace. Sennen goroshi 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Saying that assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force shows that you are biased. If you think Japan is going to start a war with Korea, have fun thinking about it in your head. Its not likely to happen. You keep contradicting yourself. The post just before you said that you weren't biased.
And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J. It doesn't matter if this article is attempted to be non-biased. It will show up one way or another that these islets are under Korean property.
Keeping J above C at Senkaku even when you are saying that alphabetical order should be used here shows you and your JPOV friends' bald attempt to keep these articles pro-Japanese. If J comes before K here, why then, shouldn't C come before J at Senkaku Islands? Because its under Japanese control? If that is your logic, it makes no sense at all. Good friend100 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Senkaku Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by Japan but also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
J P R
hmmm that seems to be in alphabetical order
And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J huh? A B C D E F H I J K
this is nothing to do with bias, I apologise if you don't like the order of the alphabet, I realise that it annoys you, but this order was not made by me, neither was it made by Japan or JPOV editors, it's just the way things are - and to be honest, it's not a big deal, at no time does alphabetical order imply order of importance, Japan has never claimed "because J is before K, these islands are ours"
me saying "assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force" does not show a JPOV, if I said "assuming that martians have not taken over the earth" would that show my blatant Martian point of view? I think not. Sennen goroshi 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the language box?
Certainly, I hate the alphabetical order... ? You're missing my point. This article used to start originally as "Liancourt Rocks...are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by S.Korea but also claimed by Japan. " JPOV users then changed it suddenly without any disucussion or notice so that Japan goes before Korea, and back up this edit by saying it should be in an "Alphabetical order."
So for constientcy, Senkaku article should begin like this: "Senkaku Is...is a disputed, uninhabited island currently claimed by China (PRC/RO) and Japan. Japan has been controlling the island although there has been a long protest from China regarding that the islands are Chinese.
I think if I were a Japanese user and read the beginning sentences above, I would say that it is definitely CPOV.
I am not just trying to prove a point. I am concerned with the lack of consitentcy between two similar articles, which is very linked with the idea of NPOV. Kingj123 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the original beginning sentence seems to be much more neutral, although it is too bad it is not in alphabetical order. Kingj123 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We have heard more than enough those Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order, again and again. Look, alphabet order!, alphabet order!, JPOV!, JPOV!, Senkaku!, Senkaku!....... Till when does it continue?? Enough is enough.
As above mentioned, Wikimachine said that "I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this...". I completely agree with his words.
I have corrected the sidebar of Senkaku Islands according to the alphabetical order. See Template:Infobox Senkaku. It has solved altogether. Is it satisfactory? Please don't continue to complain no more. It's so ridiculous. -- Gettystein 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's about being fair. Stop being a racist. It gets very tiring to see some (very racist) Japanese people say Koreans are like this or that. Go anywhere on the Internet and there are some (very racist) Japanese saying absurd things and making up lies about Koreans. It's truly pathetic.
I only agree with your opinion: Enough is Enough! Well, putting aside from your blatant offensive attack for a little while, well done on such the hard job. I truly give you a praise. You are acting like bestowing a big favor on Koreans. But that attitude is obviously wrong because you don't and couldn't own or govern this article at all. You or me are just one of the editors into here. We are in the process of discussing the matter from the different sides. If a conflict occurs, we at least try to discuss it here in a civil way, but your emotional bias toward Koreans only can make things worse. Of course the same standard is applied to Koreans.
From Koreans' viewpoint, Japanese consistently excuse themselves to justify their absurd behavior. Japanese haven't applies the same rule over the disputed territories. It is unfair and unequal, so that Koreans suggest to change the alphabetical order on the islands article. Maybe, the next move for it might be changing the name of the article in view of the talk page, which is really not my concern.
As for 'Koreans' absurd complaint', according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, absurd means "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous" and having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" or "lacking order or value", and "dealing with the absurd or with absurdism. Well, I can't hardly assume a good faith in your comment. It is not at all likely to say that your assertion is NPOV. By the way, judging by the edit history, this article remains like this forever unless the real world solves the dispute. Until then, do best for both of the party. -- Appletrees 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, that editor was trying to solve a problem, by putting China before Japan, due to alphabetical order. Please try to be a little more friendly and stop taking things so seriously - I think his choice of word ie. "absurd" was pretty much perfect. Spending hours complaining about alphabetical order is pretty absurd. He solved a problem, he showed that he didn't care if China was before Japan in a list. Sennen goroshi 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the gallery looks untidy, so suggest to change the form of it like the below. The first example makes people enable to give and perceive detailed infos, but we all acknowledge that we're very sensitive to the order of each nation name. The reason I place the Korean table first is to follow the earlier period and to equalize opportunities from always placing something related to Japan first. The advantage of using the table is to enable both Koreans and Japanese to update their things separately. If each party insist on their things first on this table, the table would just produce much problems.
The second example is to prevent from further disputes regarding orders and easily to compare the maps between Koreans' and Japanese. But the problem is that editors can't easily update info due to its complexity of the table tags. And with may lack of making tables, I can't divide the infos in detail compared to the first example and have to care info of the other side whether the table looks normal without missing anything. But I prefer this version.
Or, just we don't use this tables.
Aside from the matter of the gallery, we need maps from a third party like maps made by Chinese, American, French, German, English, and Italian in past times. They have old historical maps related Korean and Japan, which enable to explain each party's opinions.
Image | Note |
---|---|
Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks. | |
Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks. |
Image | Name | Period | Note |
---|---|---|---|
File:Hachidou2.jpg | Paldo Chongdo | 1530 | Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo) |
File:Tongkuk chido.jpg | Donguk Jido | Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-gi | Map of Kangwon province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島) |
File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg | Cheonggudo (part) | 1834 | To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo. |
Daehan Jeondo (part) | 1899 | Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [19]) |
Image | Name | Period | Note |
---|---|---|---|
Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part) | 1775, Japan | Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E. | |
An map of Shimane Prefecture | 1878 | shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map. | |
Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive. | 1881 | Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane. | |
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg | A map of Japanese Naval during Russo-Japanese War | June 1905
(38 th of Meiji period) |
the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue. |
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg | * | June 1905 | Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point. |
* | Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima | Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges. |
Japan | Map | Korea | Map |
---|---|---|---|
Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks. | Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks. | ||
Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part)
1775, Japan Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E. |
File:Hachidou2.jpg | Paldo Chongdo
1530 Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo) | |
An map of Shimane Prefecture
1878 shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map. |
File:Tongkuk chido.jpg | Donguk Jido
Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-gi Map of Gangwon Province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島) | |
Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive.
1881 Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane. |
File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg | Cheonggudo (part)
1834 To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo. | |
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg | A map of
Japanese Naval during
Russo-Japanese War
June 1905 (38 th of Meiji period) the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue. |
Daehan Jeondo (part)
1899 Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [20]) | |
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg | June 1905
Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point. |
||
Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima
Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges. |
-- Appletrees 12:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I've seen these three military maps above on JACARS public database. Images there are stated as for public use..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yamanaka-surveymap.jpg (source added from JACARS public database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg
http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html
If you would like, I can repost the images above with the original "jacar" lable on them. The image source lables were cropped because they were very large documents. It would be a big loss to delete these maps as they are all relevent to the "Dokdo and the 1904~1905 Japan~Russo War portion of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thanks.
Again, the above three maps copyright status is public. Clownface 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you can see the right above discussion with LactoseT!, images without 'relevant website' are impending to be deleted. So I found two sources from confirmed websites and add the infos. I don't know how to judge which site is favoring which side and what site is irrelevant to provide proper infos. So please see and comment regarding the status of the website.
-- Appletrees 13:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the rocks were incorporated as part of Shimane prefecture in 1905 and there is no argument in the text that they were part of Shimane prefecture before 1905. I do not see the points of these maps.
In addition, the original title of the latter one is "map of Shimane and Okayama prefectures." It also does not have the author/publisher information. Lack of such important information is making the maps less verifiable. Jjok 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that posters on this forum would like certain images to be excluded from wiki's base, most notably historical maps of Shimane that exclude Liancourt Rocks.
Maps of Shimane are critical to the Liancourt Rocks article. The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century. This is based on the idea that Oya's and Murakawas of Yonago City (in Shimane) were "bestowed fuedal tenure" of Takeshima and Ulleungdo in 1656. The Japanese also state (as disputed above) that in 1667 Saito Hosen defined Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as the northwest boundary of Japan.
Thus, if Takeshima and Ulleungdo were not part of niether Oki nor Shimane Prefectures it is highly unlikely the islands were historically part of Japan up until 1905.
I will post maps of Shimane Prefecture in the near future from Japan's national diet library found here.
Appletrees, Europeans didn't even discover Liancourt Rocks until around 1849. Prior to that they had incorrectly mapped the position of Ulleungdo and named the island Argonaut. These maps are very confusing for those less knowledgeable on the subject.
Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-russianavymap.html
The map can be found here. We can see the Japanese Navy published this map in many different editions without change in title or content.
http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/exh/exh1_1_04.html
The Liancourt Rocks page on wikipedia needs more contributors and less editors. Too many chiefs not enough braves......sigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century."
"Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"
Two maps were removed without the consent of those on this forum. The images' source was cited as JACAR and yet somebody deleted them. Who is responsible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't break alphabetical order for the benefit of wiki community doing away with unnecessary confusions. Northwest1202 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted
User:Ehyunwoo's immediately edits
[29] to last version by Northwest1202 with this user warning
[30].
--
Watermint 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I try to change the order of countries according to the Macgruder suggested common-sense order on Geography paragraph. Please see [31]. What do you think, everybody? Personally, I think that it's a good idea in order to the solution of the country names order controversy.-- Watermint 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw? A search of law journal articles might be helpful. From what I remember all of them were pro-korean. I see some already in the external link but there's more. melonbarmonster 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Economy and tourism section starts from
"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"
I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June). [32] I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005 [33] which describes:
"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo and Seoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."
Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?
Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005 [34] and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).
本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。
In addition, WP:LAME describes:
"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."
Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))-- Jjok ( talk) 19:23, 18 November 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
-- Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?
I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikimachine, I understand that in this recent edit of yours you switched the entire opening section with an alternative version which you have been building in your user section. You could have easily guessed that such a major change would be controversial. Perhaps your suggested changes should be submitted for discussion in smaller fragments, on this talk page first, rather than the whole opening section in one go. Phonemonkey 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What source? All I see is a link to the image, and has nothing about "Argonaut" or whatever. I deleted it because its poorly sourced. Just shooting back what you shot at me. Good friend100 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe we need to make it less POV by adding some Korean references, hmm? Opp2 has geared all his nonsense proposals based on "NPOV, the Japanese side must be stronger here". Its too bad for him and any other JPOV here that Liancourt is regarded as Korean territories by almost all other countries and the fact that they only needed was the move from "Dokdo" to "Liancourt" to show that is disputed. Its clear that there are more evidence that Korea asserts their right over the islets. Are you going to deny that and try to tone down everything as much as you can? Sorry, but thats only going to get you in more arguments. Poor english doesn't help either and I'm totally disgusted with miscommunication on both sides (lol especially here). Good friend100 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for political debate, just stating the facts. So am I wrong about more claims from Korea? Adding a couple maps that support Korea's position isn't the end of the world, but for some JPOV editors it is, and they must rush to change it using WP:NPOV to make their edits justified. Good friend100 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I only described the interpretation of Japan as "Japanese argue". I have not been written that this Japan claim is true. If "Interpretation" should be deleted, it is necessary to delete the map. Because it is an interpretation of Korea that makes the island in this map Liancourt Rocks. It becomes KPOV. After all, you are insisting that interpretation of Korea is NPOV and true, and the interpretation of Japan is JPOV and nonsense. -- Opp2 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
In general (this applies to arguments throughout the article) there are quite a few instances of "Japan argues this" and "Korea argues this," but what it really comes down to is that "some editor thinks it makes sense to argue this." My suggestion for the maps is that we dump any map that doesn't have cited sources up to Wikipedia standards discussing it. Perhaps a better idea might be to nix the gallery and make a new section or subsection discussing arguments based on maps. A gallery really doesn't give enough space to describe the rationales. Any map that people use in respectable sources for presenting arguments certainly has a heft bit of text associated with it. Any other thoughts? — LactoseTI T 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I will not comply with your ROGUE rules unless you participate in this discussion w/ equal consideration on both sides & you are willing to respond to ppl's questions. You're responsible for what you've said & meddled with. ( Wikimachine 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
I realize some people might get excited about this, but I don't believe the term East Sea should be used in this article at all. The proper place to make the point that Koreans call it that is on the Sea of Japan naming dispute page. You'll note that the link East Sea itself redirects to Sea of Japan. This article shouldn't take sides on the name of the sea at all. Alexwoods 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Good friend, please follow the rouge rules; surely you realized those would be controversial changes.
I suggest we add the sourced material back as well as remove your unsourced statements (unless in the meantime perhaps you can find some sources). — LactoseTI T 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't take sides. Opp's sources are just as well biased, coming from a Japanese site (which we cannot verify), not to mention some Japanese professor who wrote his claims. See WP:V. I doubt that Opp's sources are going to stay there longer. Good friend100 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I gave you this site [4], only thats its obviously written from the Korean view. Good friend100 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of these sources are meaningless and therefore the additions are too. Get the sources, discuss then add. Until then remove these recent additions, because they are in essence POV. Relating something to the French claim over some other islands is original research too. Macgruder 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In order to maintain balance, I propose you adding the following description , how is it?
United States opinion about this issue
- The US special mission ambassador James A. Van Fleet was reported to the US President Dwight Eisenhower that the Liancourt Rocks dispute should be solved through the ICJ.(See Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East)
-- Watermint 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
These are sources concerning ICJ.
The United States agreed to the reference to ICJ. However, USA was feared that Japan escalated to the UNSC resolutions when South Korea refused. At that time, it is an age of the cold war. USA wanted to avoid the fight between her allies. I think that we should delete the part of ICJ. Because it is extremely a political matter.-- Opp2 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Following is a sources from the point of International Law.
ICJ holds no jurisdiction over the territorial disputes. It is an option if disputing parties volunteer to enter its dispute to the ICJ. Korea's official position is that no international dispute exists since the territory is under Korea control and its de facto rule is not in dispute.
In spite of all the Japanese POV pushing on Wikipedia, anyone with any access to academic journal search engines will find that almost all legal literature on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute sides with the Korean side. melonbarmonster 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How is the section of ICJ done? It is necessary to point out the violation of Charter of the United Nations based on the above thesis if Japan claim add to the part. Though I am good even so, Korean will not be able to endure emotionally rather than logical. Therefore, I think that we should delete the section of ICJ. -- Opp2 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Aside from being inflammatory and petty, your change removed a sourced statement without explanation, and rearranged the content so that the statement can't be reintroduced. It doesn't make logical sense to say who occupies the islands until we know who claims them. I am going to revert the change. This article is on the verge of being locked and any change should be amply backed up on the talk page. Alexwoods 21:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Now I've had to block three editors in a row, all apparently from the same side of the dispute (which one was that again? I keep mixing them up. Oh yes, the Korean one, I suppose). Wikimachine, Good friend, and now Melonbarmonster. People will no doubt conclude I'm biased. I swear by everything that's good and holy that I'm not. It's really not my fault if one side sticks by the rules and the other doesn't. :-( Anyway, please continue the constructive discussion here, the rest of you. My personal recommendation would be to leave those naming and ordering details for later though, and concentrate on the core issue of how best to present the competing arguments. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Choosing a policy that puts Japan first is pointless in resolving this dispute just like a policy that puts Korea first is pointless. There is no clear, easy way of resolving this. One will have to be in front of the other in order. The best we can do is to word the text so that order is a moot issue. Also, order becomes a relevant issue when Japanese editors systematically change the order in the text which is what happened and what I tried to repair. The same would apply if Korean editors also did this.
On whether to state the occupation first or the dispute first, the status of occupation should be stated first because that's just undisputed fact. The reasonable thing here is to just state objective status of island and then go into the dispute. Starting out by wording the dispute is POV. melonbarmonster 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hard to assume good faith here when Japanese POV editors like Komdori have clearly gone through and placed "Japan" before "Korea" and now pretend to claim a fair principle is at work here. melonbarmonster 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is definitely not neutral. We should tag this article "neutrality disputed" before we do anything else. Kingj123 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But, you cannot just ignore neutrality just because you can't accomplish it forever. Kingj123 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that this rule is effective now. There are uncooperative editors who edits continuousry without discussing. And, the accomplished fact of the edit is justified. The opinion of man who tries to keep the rules is not reflected when there is no penalty for such uncooperative editors. Even if we want to discusses about rivert, it is difficult to take the consensus because uncooperative editors don't participate in the discussion. -- Opp2 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've finally corrected the historical inaccuracy from your 1667 Saito Hosen's Report on Oki.
Before it read as follows:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan
The last line is wrong. It was misinterpreted to mean Matsushima (Ulleungdo) was the boundary of Japan. First in 1667 Ulleungdo was called Takeshima, second the last line actually states this "州" (prefecture) is the boundary of Japan. NOT Matsushima
However now it reads:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this prefecture (Oki) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Here are my citations.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
See pages 37 and 38 of this document.
http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf
The next citation was published in the Spring 1998 Edition of the Korean Observer by Han Key Lee. The related text is on page 10. I quote:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea, so it is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in the direction of northwest one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel distance. These two island are uninhabited and getting a sight of Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus the island (s} marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. "...Here 此州 (thus or the island or these islands as sinitic characters can be used either as singular or plural) is erroneously interpreted as the "two islands." This can be rightly interpreted as denoting Oki making the northwestern boundary of Japan..."
Han Key Lee's article can be found here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm
The other published citation was written by a Japanese man named Hideki Kajimura. The reference to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki is on page 16. I quote. " The above mentioned expression in the Records on Observations in Oki Province should be interpreted as expressing Oki Island as the boundary of Japanese territory , as the Korean side points out...." Hideki Kajimura's publication called "The Question of Takeshima Dokdo can be viewed here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
All of these citations are from published articles. Clownface 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually if you read wikipedia's own current citation in use for this reference it also concurs with the links I've given. I'm just saying use the information already cited.
Read wiki's citation number 36 below.
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Koryo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Oki marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Opp, what good is it to post links to information in Japanese text? Clownface 12:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Wikimachine More later. ( Wikimachine 13:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
adding source Wikimachine mentioned in talk page, separating out into ICJ section based on Good friend's earlier suggestion Thanks for being more open, LactoseTI. ( Wikimachine 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
Why do you keep adding this source ( kimura.gif) to the article? This only leads to an image of the map itself, and is not a good source. I removed it. Good friend100 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring up the topic of the administration box in the article. Japan does not administer the islets. We've fought over this before and the initial argument of the JPOV editors was that Japan "did paperwork" on the islets, which justified them putting it up. Also, they made a ridiculous claim that if the article presents that only Korea administers the islets, then it is biased. This isn't true. No media or internet articles say that Japan administers the islands too. This is simply a distortion of the definition of "administer" by several editors. Good friend100 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My own way would be to axe out the Japanese inclusion of administration because Japan does not administer the islets. Again, I'm going to mention that the article will present itself as being controlled by Korea, there isn't some magic way to make it word for word neutral.
There are several sites and maps that don't mention Japan as administering the islets. The infobox is simply a fabrication by pro-Japan editors.
I doubt that we will agree to a new infobox. I think we should just remove the entire section, if pro-Japanese editors can't live with my edit request. Good friend100 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm no, Lactose, simply because Japan enters waters near Liancourt doesn't mean they administer it. They think they do by entering the waters and when they did, that was a while back. South Korea doesn't let them come near the islets and if they do, they send out military boats. Japan only thinks they administer it, they don't. Its true that they can't do anything but paperwork on it. If they administer it, can they land on Liancourt and make a bunch of measurements on it? No. Thats your own OR. Good friend100 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well nobody's talking. I just don't want it to say Japan "administers" because it isn't true. Good friend100 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Dokdo Center, which is used as a source for this edit is a pressure group. While I find their analysis of the Korean governments motives interesting, I am concerned that this source falls under the definition of a self-published source. Perhaps you could find similar analysis in a reliable third party source? Phonemonkey 18:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ok, ok, do whatever you want with it I'm not going to sweat over it. Maybe I'll look for another source, christ. Good friend100 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good friend100, I have about a billion ton of sources saved @ my hard drive. You might want them. If you want, I could send them over e-mail. ( Wikimachine 01:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
Does Good friend100 want to prove South Korea is running away from ICJ? In that case, I also agree. However, the source that he presented is unrelated to the content of the description(official claim). [14] This article points out that the activity in the waters doesn't become the title(ownership) of territory at Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953). And, the setting of EEZ doesn't become the title(ownership) of Liancourt Rocks. It is not an article about official claim.-- Opp2 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we stop all editing on this article & wait for the arbitration committee to specify the basis for NPOV in this article.
That is, whether Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island disputed by Japan, or Japanese island disputed by Korea, or an island of truly ambiguous ownership and of Korea's illegal/illegitimate control.
This will answer all questions to the arrangement of the info box, the wording of the intro, and several more issues. The JPOV has used NPOV as leverage to push their JPOV views on an issue that really favors South Korea. ( Wikimachine 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC))
I really don't understand why you believe the general Wikipedia community to have a pro-Japanese bias; virtually nobody in the world has ever heard of Liancourt/Dokdo/Takeshima and is extremely unlikely to even remotely care which country those oceanic pebbles belong to. And surely the definition of consensus on Wikipedia is a community view which should be respected as such, whether or not you disagree. In any case, I think if there is to be an RfC, there is a simple way around this issue - we can replace the names of the countries Korea and Japan with "country X" and "country Y". So we can phrase it like this, and ask the community to decide which of these three statements are the most NPOV:
This leaves no space for a (frankly ludicrous and totally unfounded) accusation of inherent bias in the wider community. Phonemonkey 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no previously standing framework to determine the degree of prescription & description (i.e. basis of NPOV), let's make the framework be made in process of proactive and reactive submission of ev. For example, if one was to introduce a list of reliable newspapers for a certain POV, then it would be implied that a list of non-reliable newspapers would be needed. If the ev. in the whole do not indicate favor for one over the other clearly, then we'd need Rfc to decide on the basis of NPOV. This shouldn't be user-centered ev. but a collective jumble of ev. ( Wikimachine 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Very good, Lactose, and where do we arrive again after circling around? The basis for NPOV! We can't cooperate unless we determine the basis for NPOV & I love how Phonemonkey turns his back whenever the situation poses risks for the lifeline of his POV edits on the talk page.
Also I'm confident that the arbitration will determine the basis for NPOV b/c it has very much to do with user behavior - whether or not the JPOV has used NPOV to overly emphasize JPOV. ( Wikimachine 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
I've updated some 17th Century historical information to this page
In 1695 the Shogunate inquired to Dottori (Shimane Prefecture) if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Inbashu or Hoki districts where the Oyas and Murakawas of Yonago resided. The Shogunage inquired: Since when has Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Inaba District (因幡)and Hoki District (伯耆), become under these two's jurisdiction? Is it before or after the year 1632, when the ancestors was given land? Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction?
Dottori (Shimane) replied: Takeshima does not belong to Inaba District (因幡) nor Hoki District (伯耆). There are no other islands belonging to the two districts including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)
Here are the citations.
http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf See page 38.
The next citation is from Hoon Lee's article found here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm See pages 13 and 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you cut the following sentences?
Do you understand the feudalism of Japan at that time? It is not possible to extract it like this if you know. Oki island is not land of the Tottori clan. Takeshima and Matsuhima is not land of the Tottori clan too. It is land where only the take a passage was permitted by the shognate. It is natural that these islands are not Tottori clan's land because shogunate's land. -- Opp2 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, I just had the document translated and posted it. It is free of POV. If you have another translation please post it and cite it. Just because a piece of historical evidence damages your lobby campaign is no excuse for you to blubber and try to inject unrelated data.
The 17 Century voyages of the Murakawas and Oyas departed from Yonago in Hoki District this is historical fact. The Japanese argue the Shogunate bestowed Takeshima and Matsushima to these families but we can see this is false. Oki Island is a non-issue here.
BTW your maps below have to be corrected Opp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Clownface 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp,if you have another version of this document, translate it and cite it. I've given two published citations for this document above. It is a critical piece of data. You have no right to remove it. Clownface 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I will ribart it. After the discussion, this record might be added.-- Opp2 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no another version. You only cut the part to which the take a passage permission had been licensed by the shogunate. [15]-- Opp2 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, there was nothing "altered" in my translation. Although there is other data related to Takeshima on this document I only posted the passages related to territorial ownership of the islands. Do you want to post the whole document? If so, I agree. That's fair right?
Opp, again if you have a cited translation of your own please post a link and translation and we can compare. Be reasonable.
This document is a vital part of Korea's stance on Japan's historical relationship with Takeshima and Matsushima. As I've linked above North Gyoengsan Province official stated this position, it's just as credible as any publication from Shimane Prefecture you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not discuss it like this. And,Your edit is POV(an important part is cut). First of all, I will rivert.-- Opp2 15:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, get another version of this critical information, cite it or leave it alone. It stays. Clownface 15:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, English please. Clownface 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, I agree with Goodfriend. Opp, it's not your job to censor relevant historical data on this forum. If you have something to add, get an credible source to cite in English (as I have) so we can verify it's accuracy. Then edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this [17] Good friend100 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Japan's Report on Chosun as been added with JPOV. It reads. In 1869 a the new Meiji government sent a Japanese diplomatic mission to Korea to gather information and establish relations. Their report included information about Takeshima and Matsushima. It reads as follows:
竹島松島朝鮮附屬 "How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima became Korean Possessions: Matsushima (松島) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (竹島) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this island. 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s but it now has become uninhabited..
Some Japanese scholars contend the Matsushima (松島) in this document refers to a different island due to possible mapping errors of this era.
This information was found in a publication called "The Japanese Percpetion of Tokdo During the Opening of Ports"
Found here. See pages 7~8
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm Clownface 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have some relevant images to add to this page. Any tips on how to do this? Clownface 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Japan's military involvement in the annexation process of Liancourt Rocks.
These images of Liancourt Rocks are from Japan's Historical Archives and detail the military activities of the Japanese Imperial Navy before and after Japan's incorportation of Takeshima. Korea asserts Japan seized Liancourt Rocks during the Russo~Japanese war of 1904~1905 and these maps detail this process. Over the next while I hope to improve the content of the data from this era.
Image one. Vice Commander Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks for the purpose of constructing watchtowers on November 20, 1904 this was about three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map2.jpg
This map shows the Japanese Navy's underwater telegraph systems installed all around Korean coastal areas and islands and China's Liandong Peninsula during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. You can see Dokdo was integrated within Japan's
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-telegraph2.jpg
This version of the same map is labelled in English.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg
I feel these maps are a great addition and have never been made widely available before. Let's put them up. Clownface 10:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the facts surrounding each map are mentioned in the published article called "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into its Territory in 1905" by Japanese Professor Kazuo Hori.
Kazuo Hori's article can be found here. The related information is found on page 17. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
Here is the relevant quote:
"On November 13, 1904, the Japanese Naval General Staff ordered the warship Tsushima to inspect the Liancourt Island/Tokdo and see whether it was suitable for the installation of a telegraphic station (not radio station) there.It was a survey to examine whether it was possible to build a watchtower there to be linked by submarine cable with Ullungdo. The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government. The Tsushima' s captain reported that although there was some topographical difficulty, it was possible to build a structure on the East Islet..."
If you look at the first map you can see the name of the Vice Commander Yamaka "山中少佐"written on the map of Liancourt itself. The legend shows the locations of water sources and also shows the range of visibility from each peak. I've drawn a legend on a copy of the same map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map.jpg
The documents that accompany these maps are translated on my website page. Of course it is my original research but you may find it interesting.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
The related data for the second map is found on the same page of Kazuo Hori's article it reads:
"The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the sea battle, and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima/Tokdo on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by submarin cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island. These were illegal military facilities without regard to national boundaries..."
This map has the date written on it as the 38th year of Meiji (1905) June 1st on the left side of the map. Lactose it should be noted, Japan did not follow through on this plan but rather opted to bypass Oki Island and lay underwater telegraph cables directly from Dokdo to Matsue. An original map of that plan labelled in English is here.
It is possible to post these maps myself or is that right reserved for wiki?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wonson-telegraph-line4.jpg Clownface 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Opp, the issue here is whether the maps I've posted are accurately described which they are. This Korean document gives an accurate detail and timeline of Japan's activities on Dokdo and the Korean peninsula.
http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html Clownface 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Clownface, please feel free to include these materials in the text. They are well referenced and very informative.
Opp2, you keep harping on international law even though it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. I'd love to discuss International law however if you feel it's relevant to the discussion. melonbarmonster 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster and Opp2. I didn't post the text above to amend the text of the Liancourt Rocks page. I posted this information for historical background to the maps above. It is the maps that are very critical and I feel should be presented here.
I agree with with Opp's opinion regarding the usage of "annexation" or "illegal" because it is Kazuo Hori's opinion. I will add the historical information of Japan's military activities as free of POV as possible in the near future with the consent of those on this forum.
Again, does wikipedia only post maps or can I edit the map gallery and add them myslef? I tried already......and failed.
Gettystein the articles above are published articles of with credible historical dates and even original Japanese transcripts to verify them. If you have information to the contrary please feel free to post other materials to contradict them. Clownface 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with all of your addition. All the citation which you presented are written in Korean language. Many people cannot verify whether your translation is right. Actually, Opp2 mentioned your misunderstanding already. As other example, your quote said that "The Tsushima arrived at the Liancourt Island on November 20, and this was the first-ever survey of Takeshima/Tokdo by the Japanese government", but it is a clearly fault. Because, the first survey of Japanese government (Meiji period) was conducted by Japanese Naval ship
Amagi by order of a diplomat
Terashima Munenori in July 1880. Therefore, I think your immediately major edits should be remove from contents cause the reliability of presented citation is doubtful.
By the way, why do you add to the contents although you have not reached a consensus? -- Gettystein 07:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Amagi didn't survey Liancourt Rocks Gerrystein, the Amagi surveyed Matsushima (Ullengdo) The Tsushima did a detailed topogroaphic survey of Liancourt Rocks for building watchtowers and concluded the East Islet was suitable for watchtowers. Clownface 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the diff. None of the edits are explained. Unilateral changes to the infobox which are still being discussed, addition of uncited comments about the S Korea's refusal to take the case to the IJC - if these are not explained here then these edits will be reverted. Unilateral removal of Japanese maps with no explanation is vandalism and should be reverted. Phonemonkey 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted to old version cause we have never heard explain from Wronglong.-- Watermint 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added and cited Korea's documented complaints by local, central governments and media.
Upon learning the Japanese had incorporated Liancourt Rocks, Ulleungdo Governor Shim Heung Taek sent the following memorandum to the central government on Lunar March 5th 1906: "Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp'o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory..."
Afterwards the Daehan Governor Responded:
"Order No.3 by the Daehan Empires Governor I have read this report. Their word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people...."
The Korean newspaper Daehan Maeil Shinbo also sharply criticized the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima on May 1st 1906 stating:
"The Domestic Affairs office stated "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleungdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking...."
This is again cited from Kazuo Hori's publication. The relevent text is found on pages 21 and 22. Clownface 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
I've added this text and a header to give historical background and a brief timeline of the Japanese Navy's Involvement on Liancourt Rocks.
On February 8th 1904 the Japanese Navy opened a surprise attack on Russian boats Varyag and Korietz anchored in Chemulpo (Incheon). Their troops continued to advance into Seoul and after weeks of continued intimidations and coercion the Koreans signed the February 24th, Japan-Korea Protocol. The protocol allowed the Japanese to occupy strategic areas of Korea.
Immediately the Japanese Army and Navy began constructing military observation and communications posts on all strategic coastal and island locations of Korea. These areas included: Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Palpo, Wonsan, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, and Pusan.
On September 25th 1904 the Japanese Warship Niitaka was involved in telegraph construction on Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and reported "...Korean's call Liancourt Rocks Dokdo and Japanese fishermen call them Riangko.." It was also reported that "..the East Islet was low and flat, thus suitable for constructing military buildings..."
The Japanese Warship Tsushima was issued special directive #276 on November 13th 1904. It included three instructions: a)Inform of the test of the wireless telegraph communications of Takasaki Mountain along with the test technician. b)Survey Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo Island) for its suitability for telegraph installation (not wireless telegraph) c)Dispatch workers and materials for Matsushima, (Ulleungdo) Jukpyeon, and Cape Ulsan watchtowers.
On the morning of November 20th 1904 Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Tsushima surveyed Liancourt Rocks and concluded with some difficulty a watchtower could be constructed on Liancourt's East Islet. His survey of Liancourt Rocks was forwarded to the Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department on January 5th of 1905.
The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the infamous Battle of Tsushima and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by underwater cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island.
Citations here. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html
Related material from Peter Duus' "The Abacus and the Sword" was also added. 124.80.111.109 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.80.111.109 ( talk) 08:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this, but the JPOV has attempted to make Liancourt Rocks "more theirs" by pushing for "J before K, alphabetic order" which doesn't apply at all to any of the article body. The admin himself is POV. When ppl complain about this, these ridiculous ppl go "so what, not a big deal". Well if it's not a big deal for us, it's not big for you either. Whether or not you assert that this is the Wikipedia policy (which absolutely is not), if there are ppl who perceive this as POV, you have to step back & fix it. Again, I'll put all of these to the Arbitration Committee. ( Wikimachine 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
I proposed that this part of the template be deleted as a whole, but now the thread is dead so I'm making a new one. I'm still thinking that it should be all deleted. Good friend100 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep it but reworded - it's to label the box "claimants" (as opposed to "administration"), and to put S Korea first with a label "current control". This way we can avoid the use of the word "administration" since it is this word seems to be the root of the issue (although personally I don't see the problem with Future Perfect's trial version). Phonemonkey 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to note that this might look all neat & nice but I think that our good old JPOVs here want to prescribe that the island's ownership status is truly ambiguous. I do not see S. Korea as simply a claimant. Again, if we were to discuss about the degree of prescription/basis for NPOV, we would not have any trouble on this, but I'll wait until the arbitration is finished. ( Wikimachine 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
That isn't prescribing. If South Korea has a stronger claim than Japan, its going to show up in the article. If you're not happy, then wikipedia isn't the place for you.
@Phonemonkey if you really feel that we shouldn't delete it, then your proposal is what I like best. Good friend100 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Lactose - I don't think the administrative region information should be dumped, because (as you pointed out before) that's essentially the whole reason why the infobox exists - remember, we're only "artificially" avoiding the word "administration" in this particular instance because agreeing to an exact definition of the word is proving troublesome, but the nature of the infobox is still the same. As for the issue of which country should come first, if you apply the "common sense order" as proposed by Mcgruder in the section above, I feel it's only natural to put the current controlling power first. What do you think? Phonemonkey 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, realise that Lactose has his share of personal attacks. A couple weeks ago, he suggested that I was paranoid and told me to look it up in Wikipedia. Can't seem to find the comment though. His insults are very camoflauged, but you can pick them out. Good friend100 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it not a neutral description to say that the rocks are claimed by S Korea and Japan, that S Korea is currently in control of it, and that the rightful ownership of the islets are in dispute? Phonemonkey 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a double map image in the map gallery. In addition there are empty spaces with no images. Can the fine folks at wiki clean house or can posters here simply delete these areas? 124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering setting up a gallery with Dokdo related images such as photos of the island and related historical documents. If anyone has any ideas or anything to contribute please do. 124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a photo? That could be a useful inclusion in this article. JPBarrass 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again everyone. I've contacted Professional photographer Kim Cheol Hwan here in Korea because he has taken some images I'm interested in.
The first is a picture of Dokdo from Korea's Ulleungdo Island.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo.jpg
The next is a picture of Ulleungdo Island from Dokdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulleung.jpg
I'll put them up as soon as I've been given permission. BTW how do I verify this? Clownface 05:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have a question.
Why is the information bar in the ariticle Zen not in alphabetical order, but the information bar of this article is in alphabetical order? (If the argument is going to be about: Zen is innately Japanese, then pleas do not even start it. Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea. Registration, and majority agreements are not the same). If we are really talking about NPOV, then let's make it fair for all articles. I apologize for the interruption in the middle of The Argument. Thank you. Amphitere —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Just goes to show how biased Wikipedia is... The changing of the name to "Liancourt Rocks" is the first step in it eventually being called "Takeshima". These islets are obviously Korean and currently administered by South Korea. So why don't the South Koreans have a right to name them as they wish? I wish rules were applied fairly here. But clearly they are not. This really tarnishes the image of the site.-- 116.37.83.152 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The rules are not applied fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.244.40.243 ( talk) 02:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Check out the article Senkaku Islands. -- Kingj123 23:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Kingj123 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
also you have to consider how long that particular order has been in place. Sennen goroshi 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be consensus for such an obvious bias in this article. Keeping the Japanese name on top of the Chinese one in Senkaku is just another sign of how editors like you try to keep a hold on these Japanese related articles. Good friend100 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not obvious bias, and consensus is required (especially in this article, due to its past history) unless it is obvious vandalism. And please assume good faith and steer clear from personal insults in the talk pages. I don't try to 'keep a hold on' any articles, in this case it seems obvious, A-Z, J is before K - therefore a simple alphabetical order is best...it is not as if there is an order of importance implied by the order, is there? Sometimes I wonder why people consider it to mean anything, if one country is listed before another...seems a little petty to me. Sennen goroshi 04:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned that a simple alphabetical order works the best. If it doesn't mean anything but a simple alphabetical order, why is it a problem for you if we use alphabetical order for Senkaku Islands? You are contradicting yourself... aren't you? Kingj123 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
if there was a long history of alphabetical order on that article, and you were merely reverting to that order, then of course it would be OK. But that is not the case, you would change the order on that article, merely to prove a point, which is not constructive editing. Edits should be done to improve wikipedia, that should be your only motive in editing, you would change that article, mainly because you wish to prove a point, because you dont like the order in this article. If an article has a long standing history of using a certain order, perhaps you should respect the previous editors a little more, and obtain some form of consensus before making changes. Please dont use wikipedia to prove a point, there are more suitable places for proving points, and pushing POV, such as chatrooms or myspace. Sennen goroshi 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Saying that assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force shows that you are biased. If you think Japan is going to start a war with Korea, have fun thinking about it in your head. Its not likely to happen. You keep contradicting yourself. The post just before you said that you weren't biased.
And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J. It doesn't matter if this article is attempted to be non-biased. It will show up one way or another that these islets are under Korean property.
Keeping J above C at Senkaku even when you are saying that alphabetical order should be used here shows you and your JPOV friends' bald attempt to keep these articles pro-Japanese. If J comes before K here, why then, shouldn't C come before J at Senkaku Islands? Because its under Japanese control? If that is your logic, it makes no sense at all. Good friend100 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Senkaku Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by Japan but also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
J P R
hmmm that seems to be in alphabetical order
And this is definitely obvious bias. K should come before J huh? A B C D E F H I J K
this is nothing to do with bias, I apologise if you don't like the order of the alphabet, I realise that it annoys you, but this order was not made by me, neither was it made by Japan or JPOV editors, it's just the way things are - and to be honest, it's not a big deal, at no time does alphabetical order imply order of importance, Japan has never claimed "because J is before K, these islands are ours"
me saying "assuming that Japan has not by then taken back their islands with their mighty military force" does not show a JPOV, if I said "assuming that martians have not taken over the earth" would that show my blatant Martian point of view? I think not. Sennen goroshi 04:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the language box?
Certainly, I hate the alphabetical order... ? You're missing my point. This article used to start originally as "Liancourt Rocks...are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by S.Korea but also claimed by Japan. " JPOV users then changed it suddenly without any disucussion or notice so that Japan goes before Korea, and back up this edit by saying it should be in an "Alphabetical order."
So for constientcy, Senkaku article should begin like this: "Senkaku Is...is a disputed, uninhabited island currently claimed by China (PRC/RO) and Japan. Japan has been controlling the island although there has been a long protest from China regarding that the islands are Chinese.
I think if I were a Japanese user and read the beginning sentences above, I would say that it is definitely CPOV.
I am not just trying to prove a point. I am concerned with the lack of consitentcy between two similar articles, which is very linked with the idea of NPOV. Kingj123 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the original beginning sentence seems to be much more neutral, although it is too bad it is not in alphabetical order. Kingj123 15:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We have heard more than enough those Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order, again and again. Look, alphabet order!, alphabet order!, JPOV!, JPOV!, Senkaku!, Senkaku!....... Till when does it continue?? Enough is enough.
As above mentioned, Wikimachine said that "I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this...". I completely agree with his words.
I have corrected the sidebar of Senkaku Islands according to the alphabetical order. See Template:Infobox Senkaku. It has solved altogether. Is it satisfactory? Please don't continue to complain no more. It's so ridiculous. -- Gettystein 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's about being fair. Stop being a racist. It gets very tiring to see some (very racist) Japanese people say Koreans are like this or that. Go anywhere on the Internet and there are some (very racist) Japanese saying absurd things and making up lies about Koreans. It's truly pathetic.
I only agree with your opinion: Enough is Enough! Well, putting aside from your blatant offensive attack for a little while, well done on such the hard job. I truly give you a praise. You are acting like bestowing a big favor on Koreans. But that attitude is obviously wrong because you don't and couldn't own or govern this article at all. You or me are just one of the editors into here. We are in the process of discussing the matter from the different sides. If a conflict occurs, we at least try to discuss it here in a civil way, but your emotional bias toward Koreans only can make things worse. Of course the same standard is applied to Koreans.
From Koreans' viewpoint, Japanese consistently excuse themselves to justify their absurd behavior. Japanese haven't applies the same rule over the disputed territories. It is unfair and unequal, so that Koreans suggest to change the alphabetical order on the islands article. Maybe, the next move for it might be changing the name of the article in view of the talk page, which is really not my concern.
As for 'Koreans' absurd complaint', according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, absurd means "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous" and having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" or "lacking order or value", and "dealing with the absurd or with absurdism. Well, I can't hardly assume a good faith in your comment. It is not at all likely to say that your assertion is NPOV. By the way, judging by the edit history, this article remains like this forever unless the real world solves the dispute. Until then, do best for both of the party. -- Appletrees 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, that editor was trying to solve a problem, by putting China before Japan, due to alphabetical order. Please try to be a little more friendly and stop taking things so seriously - I think his choice of word ie. "absurd" was pretty much perfect. Spending hours complaining about alphabetical order is pretty absurd. He solved a problem, he showed that he didn't care if China was before Japan in a list. Sennen goroshi 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the gallery looks untidy, so suggest to change the form of it like the below. The first example makes people enable to give and perceive detailed infos, but we all acknowledge that we're very sensitive to the order of each nation name. The reason I place the Korean table first is to follow the earlier period and to equalize opportunities from always placing something related to Japan first. The advantage of using the table is to enable both Koreans and Japanese to update their things separately. If each party insist on their things first on this table, the table would just produce much problems.
The second example is to prevent from further disputes regarding orders and easily to compare the maps between Koreans' and Japanese. But the problem is that editors can't easily update info due to its complexity of the table tags. And with may lack of making tables, I can't divide the infos in detail compared to the first example and have to care info of the other side whether the table looks normal without missing anything. But I prefer this version.
Or, just we don't use this tables.
Aside from the matter of the gallery, we need maps from a third party like maps made by Chinese, American, French, German, English, and Italian in past times. They have old historical maps related Korean and Japan, which enable to explain each party's opinions.
Image | Note |
---|---|
Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks. | |
Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks. |
Image | Name | Period | Note |
---|---|---|---|
File:Hachidou2.jpg | Paldo Chongdo | 1530 | Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo) |
File:Tongkuk chido.jpg | Donguk Jido | Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-gi | Map of Kangwon province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島) |
File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg | Cheonggudo (part) | 1834 | To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo. |
Daehan Jeondo (part) | 1899 | Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [19]) |
Image | Name | Period | Note |
---|---|---|---|
Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part) | 1775, Japan | Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E. | |
An map of Shimane Prefecture | 1878 | shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map. | |
Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive. | 1881 | Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane. | |
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg | A map of Japanese Naval during Russo-Japanese War | June 1905
(38 th of Meiji period) |
the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue. |
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg | * | June 1905 | Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point. |
* | Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima | Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges. |
Japan | Map | Korea | Map |
---|---|---|---|
Distances. Liancourt Rocks are located at 37°14′N, 131°52′E and Ulleungdo appears at 37°30′N, 130°52′E, west of Liancourt Rocks. | Ulleungdo and the small neighboring island, Jukdo located in 2 km east. Jukdo is larger than the total area of Liancourt Rocks. | ||
Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu (part)
1775, Japan Matsushima (松島) appears at 37°50′N, 131°40′E with Takeshima (竹島), aka. Isotakeshima (一云 磯竹島) at around 37°80′N, 131°00′E. |
File:Hachidou2.jpg | Paldo Chongdo
1530 Including two islands to the east: Usando and Ulleungdo (Usando is to the west of Ulleungdo) | |
An map of Shimane Prefecture
1878 shows all adjacent minor islands off Japan's coast including Minoshima and Okinoshima. Liancourt Rocks is not shown on this map. |
File:Tongkuk chido.jpg | Donguk Jido
Made before 1752 by Jeong Sang-gi Map of Gangwon Province with islands labeled Ulleungdo and Usando (杆山島) | |
Map of Shimane Prefecture with minor islands inclusive.
1881 Oki Islands and Minoshima are shown as part of Shimane. Liancourt Rocks are not shown as part of Shimane. |
File:1834-Ulleungdo-map.jpg | Cheonggudo (part)
1834 To scale map featuring Usan (于山), located in about 10 ri (리 里) from Ulleungdo. | |
File:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg | A map of
Japanese Naval during
Russo-Japanese War
June 1905 (38 th of Meiji period) the locations of telegraph lines between Japan and Korea as of June 1905. The red wavy line from Oki to Korea through Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima, 竹島) and Ulleungdo (Matsushima, 松島) is designated as "Planned" (豫定)the line was instead linked from Liancourt Rocks to Matsue. |
Daehan Jeondo (part)
1899 Showing Usando slightly northeast to Ulleungdo, both drawn just west of 37°40′N, 130°30′E. [20]) | |
File:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg | June 1905
Immediately following the Battle of Tsushima the Japanese Warship Hashidate again surveyed in June 1905. The result was this survey map of Dokdo showing the Japanese Imperial Navy's plans for a watchtower, communications post and observation point. |
||
Three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima
Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks. It shows suitable watchtower locations and visibility ranges. |
-- Appletrees 12:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I've seen these three military maps above on JACARS public database. Images there are stated as for public use..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese-telegraph2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yamanaka-surveymap.jpg (source added from JACARS public database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hashidate-dokdomap.jpg
http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/index.html
If you would like, I can repost the images above with the original "jacar" lable on them. The image source lables were cropped because they were very large documents. It would be a big loss to delete these maps as they are all relevent to the "Dokdo and the 1904~1905 Japan~Russo War portion of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thanks.
Again, the above three maps copyright status is public. Clownface 07:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As you can see the right above discussion with LactoseT!, images without 'relevant website' are impending to be deleted. So I found two sources from confirmed websites and add the infos. I don't know how to judge which site is favoring which side and what site is irrelevant to provide proper infos. So please see and comment regarding the status of the website.
-- Appletrees 13:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the rocks were incorporated as part of Shimane prefecture in 1905 and there is no argument in the text that they were part of Shimane prefecture before 1905. I do not see the points of these maps.
In addition, the original title of the latter one is "map of Shimane and Okayama prefectures." It also does not have the author/publisher information. Lack of such important information is making the maps less verifiable. Jjok 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that posters on this forum would like certain images to be excluded from wiki's base, most notably historical maps of Shimane that exclude Liancourt Rocks.
Maps of Shimane are critical to the Liancourt Rocks article. The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century. This is based on the idea that Oya's and Murakawas of Yonago City (in Shimane) were "bestowed fuedal tenure" of Takeshima and Ulleungdo in 1656. The Japanese also state (as disputed above) that in 1667 Saito Hosen defined Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as the northwest boundary of Japan.
Thus, if Takeshima and Ulleungdo were not part of niether Oki nor Shimane Prefectures it is highly unlikely the islands were historically part of Japan up until 1905.
I will post maps of Shimane Prefecture in the near future from Japan's national diet library found here.
Appletrees, Europeans didn't even discover Liancourt Rocks until around 1849. Prior to that they had incorrectly mapped the position of Ulleungdo and named the island Argonaut. These maps are very confusing for those less knowledgeable on the subject.
Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-russianavymap.html
The map can be found here. We can see the Japanese Navy published this map in many different editions without change in title or content.
http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/exh/exh1_1_04.html
The Liancourt Rocks page on wikipedia needs more contributors and less editors. Too many chiefs not enough braves......sigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Japanese government has insisted (as quoted in the article) that the islands were an integral part of Japan since the 17 Century."
"Here is a Russian map of Dokdo. It was based on an 1854 survey by the Russian Navy's Putyatian Fleet. The title of the map is the East Coast of Chosun and includes both Ulleungdo and Dokdo. The title of the map is "The East Coast of Korea"
Two maps were removed without the consent of those on this forum. The images' source was cited as JACAR and yet somebody deleted them. Who is responsible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't break alphabetical order for the benefit of wiki community doing away with unnecessary confusions. Northwest1202 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted
User:Ehyunwoo's immediately edits
[29] to last version by Northwest1202 with this user warning
[30].
--
Watermint 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I try to change the order of countries according to the Macgruder suggested common-sense order on Geography paragraph. Please see [31]. What do you think, everybody? Personally, I think that it's a good idea in order to the solution of the country names order controversy.-- Watermint 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw? A search of law journal articles might be helpful. From what I remember all of them were pro-korean. I see some already in the external link but there's more. melonbarmonster 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Economy and tourism section starts from
"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"
I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June). [32] I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005 [33] which describes:
"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo and Seoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."
Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?
Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005 [34] and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).
本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。
In addition, WP:LAME describes:
"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."
Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))-- Jjok ( talk) 19:23, 18 November 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. |