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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 23 |
{editprotected} As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance {{Redirect|Liancourt|the town in France|Liancourt, Oise}}. Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. Markussep Talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If one doesn't believe the inclusion of Dokdo from Ulleungdo(Sp?) and the Korean claims from the Silla times, please read below... |
---|
"Furthermore, Korean Government took necessary legal and administrative actions to meet even the elements of the modern international law in the appropriate process of acquiring land, and published the actions by the Official Gazette issued by the Central Government on October 25, 1900, five years earlier than the ineffective action by a Japanese Province of Shimaneken Publish Notice No. 40 dated Feb 28, 1905.
Korean Official Gazette dated October 27(Saturday), 1900 published Rescript No. 41as follows(Excerpt) :43))
Subject : To name the "Ullundo Island" as Ulldo Island and reform the title of the Island administrator from the "Supervisor" to the Chief of the Country.
Article 1 : Ullundo Island is hereby renamed as "Ulldo Island" and annexed to Kangwondo Province. The title of the Supervisor of the Island is reformed as the chief of the county and is hereby included in the Central Government Organization as the Rank of Class 5.
Article 2 : The location of the country building is settled at Daeha-dong and the scope of the jurisdiction of the county covers all the Ullungdo area, Jukdo Island and "the Rocks Islets"(i.e. the Dokdo Islets).
Article 3 : ...............................
Article 4 : County budget is to be kept to the level of the Rank of Class 5. As the budget is insufficient in the inchoate period of time and there must be a variety of issues to be settled, supplement necessary expenses directly from the taxes collected from the Island.
Article 5 : As to other items, take appropriate actions in accordance with progress of its development.
King Kwangmu Reign 4th year October 25.
(Sealed by His Majesty)
Cabinet (acting) Secretary, Home Affairs Minister Lee Kun Ha
Implementation Order.
Reading the Rescript, attention is invited to the name of the "Rocks Islets" that fell in the jurisdiction of Chief of the County Ulldo Island by the provision of the Article 2. The name "Rocks Islets(石島)" is the very "Liancourt Rocks" which is one of many names aforementioned for it. For the "Rocks Islets", for example, there are two means of writing in accordance with the Korean way of expression, by either "Dokdo Islets" or "Sukdo Islets" because the Korean has two letters for "Rocks", one is "Dok" and the other, "Suk". There are some examples for the name "Rocks" still in practical usage of the two ways at present in mainland of Korea.44))
The Dokdo Islets are a part of Korean territory on the ground of early historical record(Since A.D 512), and also, the Rescript verifies the fact that the Royal Korean Government at the time has taken proper actions for the sovereignty over "The Dokdo Islets" even in light of the modern international law as already shown." Quoted from http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-a1.htm |
Please visit the site for more evidence of that Korea does in fact own soverignty over the islands against Japan's claim from 1905. As for me, if one can disprove the document which also listed it's sources then I'll join the JPOV.
AHeartInSolitude ( talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)February 27, 2008
The islets are known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally solitary island) in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) in Japanese. The English name Liancourt Rocks is derived from Le Liancourt, the name of the French whaling ship whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849.
Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) -> Takeshima (たけしま/竹島, Takeshima , literally bamboo island) Change please Caomengde ( talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your article on Liancourt Rocks reads as follows. "..Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate..."
Actually, it should read "...Japan annexed the islands about a year after her military occupied Korea as a protectorate..."
Japanese forces landed in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. Her soldiers marched into Seoul and after weeks of intimidation Korea signed the Japan~Korea Protocol on Feburary 26th 1904, which "allowed" the Japanese military to appropriate Korean land deemed of military strategic value.
Here is the link to the document, from the 1904 American Foreign Affairs archives. Please see Article IV paragraph two.
I will edit this problem later. Thanks Clownface ( talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add this as an External Link? http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/index.html there may be a japanese equivalent, but i don't know what it might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.76.15.52 ( talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
what means dokdo? 'dok' means not solitary, but stone(Jeolla dialect). -Sallim Cheosa(korean)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.85 ( talk) 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I found that Sept. 25, 1900( Gojong 38 ) when Joseon set aside Uleungdo as a county, they mentioned about Stone island. some Koreans think the Stone island is Dokdo, the rocks. So 石島 is not unrelated to 獨島. -- Cheol ( talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
독도는 우리땅! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.76.40 ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just warned User:Logitech95 of the terms of engagement after an undiscussed blind revert to the article. Further disruptive edits may result in sanctions with no further warning required. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese's claim Silla's record only indicate Ulleung Island about 200miles far away from Takeshima. Takeshima belongs to Hoki country from Edo era.
However, the Koreans have rejected this claim by arguing that the Japanese claim over the islets was the first step towards Japan's eventual claim over the rest of Korea. Korea was then forced to become a Japanese protectorate in 1905 after King Kojong was forced to abdicate his throne.
In Dec 1949 United Nation's GHQ decided Takashima belongs to Japan (see photo)
In August 1951,South Korea requested US let Japan give up Dokto/Takeshima,but US secretary of states David Dean Rusk reserch the historical dispute and rejected South Korea's Request by Rusk Letter2P. 1P 2P 3P 4P
In January 1952, South Korea's Syngman Rhee line declaration included Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. Since September 1954, Japan has proposed adjudicating this problem in the International Court of Justice but South Korea has both refused to accept this proposal or to acknowledge the dispute, likely based on various grounds. [1] North Korea supports the South Korean claim as is often expressed through their KCNA news organ.
2008 South Korea Gov suddenly complained to Japanese Gov to Deliet the article of Takeshima/Dokt despute from Japanese History/Geography Text Book (But South Korea's Text book Clearly describe Dokto Blongs to SK) Japanese Gov orderd moderate of their Textbook but SK shut down their Japan embassy.-- Jack330 ( talk) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
theres nothing to pick up from here. Good friend100 ( talk) 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Jack330, you seem to be confusing the legal basis of the Rusk Documents. They are simply a negotiating position prior to the San Francisco Treaty. And because of this, they have little bearing on the eventual outcome of the status of Liancourt Rocks. Dean Rusk essentially was stating that (he 'thought') the rocks were Japanese territory, and therefore the SF treaty did not need to deal with their status. So they are less relevant than they appear. I do hope that Japanese wikipedia does not parrot the line "In Dec 1949 United Nation's GHQ decided Takashima belongs to Japan" because the Rusk Documents are just that: documents. They are not legal agreements. Macgruder ( talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of current references stands on Korean view and redundant. I recommend to elminate some part of these and at least we should add Japan's official issue below.
"Outline of the Issue of Takeshima" http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html
Lssrt ( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to insist one side. Just try to depict diffrence of stance. Liancourt Rocks are just same as other thoudands of offshore rocks which nobody cares, if it was not in international dispute. So issue from both side should be center topic for informative encycropedia.
Looking at current small international dispute section and biased reference section, I cannot understand how Fut.Perf think the form of this article should be, especially from "Neautral point of view". I think we should have both side of outline issue. (Paldochongdo topic should be one of that, which you deleted.) Lssrt ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is rather inaccurate and conflicts with another post on wikipedia.
Japan incorporated the islands just a few years before they occupied Korea in 1910. After Japanese troops were forced out in 1945 and Korea regained its independence - the islands is part of that as well. Korea has controlled the islands for 50 years and to raise the issue that the islands belong to Japan is silly. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aDi.oz3fJEGg&refer=japan
The issue is not about pre-modern territorial disputes. The issue is about the islands that were effectively part of Korea throughout history until Korea was forcibly occupied by Japan and now there is a lot of backtracking as to why it was historically already Japan's. From a recent report: South Korea is sensitive about the islands, which were the first Korean territory to be annexed by Japan in 1905, presaging colonial conquest. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/japan-korea-renew-isles-row/2006/04/19/1145344155568.html
Also, to say that Korea was Japan's protectorate is extremely insulting to Koreans. It is as if you are saying that various European countries were protectorates of Nazi Germany.
Please change the phrased that Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan as it states on the Korea page. "In 1910, Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan and remained occupied until the end of World War II in August 1945."
Please also see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
Many Japanese leaders have since then acknowledged and apologized to Korea for its cruelties and attempts at cultural genocide during that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doryfish00 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
someone anoymously emailed me to post this link about the liancourt rocks. The site looks like a complete copy of wikipedia to me. And he wanted me to tell people at wikipedia to also check the talk page of the article, link posted below.
I have nothing to do with any of this please dont start up on me. Good friend100 ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel rather uneasy about the recent large additions to the dispute section by Lexico ( talk · contribs). These seem all directly sourced only to the primary sources in question. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We need a reliable, neutral secondary source in the form of a modern historian's treatment discussing the significance of these documents, not just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves.
Uncontrolled growth of this section on the basis of primary sources was one of the main causes of the chaos we had in this article last year, so I call for a thorough review and, if necessary, removal of these sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The text in the "International disputes" prior to my contribution began with the title "WWII" but mentioned the 1905 inclusion, which does not adequately address the details of the hows and the whys of the dispute, and was highly illogical. Not only does the 1905 Japanese incorporation occur more than three decades before the outbreak of the Lugouqiao Incident of 1937 that marked the Asian chapter of WWII, but the strong reaction in the Korean government regarding "Liancourt Rocks" becomes unintelligible without the 1900 Imperial Decree with which the 1905 incorporation comes into direct conflict as a matter of logic. So the rhetorical question to follow would be, "How would a wikipedia article address the 'dispute' without these two governmental documents that clashed head on?"
Your request to check the tendency of the "disputes section" to grow out of control is admirable, yet that should not equate to the removal of the subsections "1900" and "1905" dealing with these two pivotal historical documents. In such a case, I believe it is by far better policy to simply remove the "International disputes" section altogether as superficiality would be otherwise inevitable as a result.
In a way, I agree with the minimalist approach; nevertheless the "1877 Daijo-kan" subsection was a well thought out addition as that is also an important governmental document that has more than an insignificant bearing on the subject. Although I did not create it, I fully approve of the decision and clarity given in the subsection. As for Japan's MOFA claim that "another island is not Liancourt Rocks" (which was inaccurately ascribed to me in Lexico ( talk · contribs)), I am not fully aware of the details, and will offer my input if I can verify a reliable source that is traceable to the original document.
As for the inclusion of the two original documents, they are in the public domain. Hence I disagree with your comment "just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves". Anyone who has researched the subject with any intellectual integrity couldn't possibly have missed what documents are the smoking guns. But like I said in a previous response, I omitted the web source as it was not in English, not becuase I was bent on monopolising the sources. What mattered to me most was that a legibly clear image in the public domain was available. My suggestion would be to google for images with the identifying key words; they are readily available to anyone as they are to me provided we spoke the same set of languages. Lex ( talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to Cite web rather than just put URIs into the article. Heroeswithmetaphors ( talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I shall cite web whenever I can find a website in English with comparable image quality. Currently I have enough trouble locating any image file that is reasonably legible, and finding one in an English web page multiplies the difficulty, but I shall give an honest effort to comply. Lex ( talk) 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, can we please cut back on the Recentism? This is an encyclopedia article, which should contain only information that will retain its significance and usefulness over the years. The details of daily news reporting don't belong here. Gory details of pheasant-slaughtering and all that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody dropped by and blindly reverted the whole dispute section to one of the hugely overblown, chaotic versions of last year, without even an attempt of discussion. This is totally unacceptable. That old article was stubbed back for a very good reason. It was terribly written, rambling, unstructured, with POV wholes gaping everywhere. I'll revert it tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
By experiencing that reverting back is repeated often, I think Korean and Japanese have their own claims which seem not possible to make a consensus. I suggest to write an FAQ which lists frequent claims and the WP's consensus on those, in order to let them know we recognized the issues. I hope the FAQ could prevent often reverting back. -- Cheol ( talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Historiographer, I noticed you added a wealth of historical material in the article on "Liancourt Rocks". While I admire the effort you put in, and admit that certain parts of it are quite true or at least deserving of serious attention, I am not quite sure if the majority should be included as the main text of the article. Quantitywise, the article length jumped from ca. 25 k to ca. 80 k just overnight, a threefold increase mostly from your input. That comes as a rather mild shock to one who has poured much care into every single word and addition making sure any addition would withstand the test of time. Some of the words you added are not properly suppported such as the following.
Quote "The Three Kingdoms period // In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do, was conquered and "re-integrated" into Silla."
Comment on relevance : How is the history-geography of Ulleung Is. relevant to that of Liancourt Rocks? The assumption needs to be stated explicitly no matter how plausible or intutive it might seem as there will be others from a neutral POV who do not readily subscribe to that view. For instance, your assumption could partially have been based on the archaeological evidence of whalers depicted on petroglyphs in Bangudae, Ulju, ( Bangudae Petroglyphs 울산 대곡리 반구대 암각화) that could suggest either Ulleung Is. and Liancourt Rocks had been within easy reach of the "Proto-Sillan" whalers of the late-neolithic to early bronze-age dwellers of present-day Ulsan, South Gyeongsang Province, but the actual analysis and interpretation of the archeological evidence has yet to be conducted and published in order to have any historical significance. In other words, the jump from physical geography to human geography, and that from archaeology-anthropology to history, do not come without labour in the form of a well-conducted, well-documented, critical study that shows the degree of certainty of the idea you wish to employ if indeed that were your intention.
Comment on historiographical accuracy : I am not certain at all as to what you might have meant by "island kingdom located on Ulleung-do" being "'re-integrated' into Silla." Had the island kingdom ever been part of Silla before the conquest of 512 CE? I am not aware of any study claiming that. Are you assuming the Silla-style pottery and other archeological finds unearthed on Ulleung Island dated to the 4th century is evidence that
(1) Silla had control over Ulleung Island before 512, that
(2) Ulleung Island had been a Silla colony, that
(3) colonialists on Ulleung Island of Silla origin had revolted some time before the 512 conquest, and that
(4) Silla had simply reclaimed its former colony in 512?
While I admit the possibility all of these being historical truths, three requirements must be met before you can make that claim.
A. hypothesis : an historian has proposed the possibilities of (1) through (4)
B. evidence : an historian has presented further evidence and reasoning to back up the claim of the hypothesis, which now becomes a "theory" for peer review
C. reference : you need to include at least the essence of the "theory" and also attribute the theory with the study in which it was published
In the absence of A, B, or C, we need to stay conservative; otherwise it becomes your Original Research that needs to be avoided as article material. (interesting theory by the way if one existed)
Another thing I've noticed is that an administrator considers your addition as a revert to last year's article. Although I am not certain if that is the case as I was not here when that happened, (s)he also announced that your additions will be undone. May I suggest you undo your recent additions and add a small quantity of material at a time so that other editors can have a chance to discuss and participate in improving the article as a whole? It looks highly likely that your additions will be axed anyway; it would be far better to police oneself than being censored by an organisational authority. Please take the necessary measures without delay. Hope to see your contributions in a more constructive light. Lex ( talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
edit: In view of the fact that an article on An, Yong Bok, in English does not exist, I have taken the liberty of creating a new article with the material that you supplied. My main reason was that there are simply too many details than would be deemed appropriate for the average viewer. The subsection of "The An, Yong Bok, Incident" is in serious need of a compressing down to the essence, leaving only a link to the minute details and whole exceprpts from original documents. I have not changed any text about An, Yong Bok, here or in the new article excluding formatting, linking, and romanisation matters. Lex ( talk) 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "International dispute" section, which is ironically under a great dispute right now, it is written that Emperor Gojong sent emissaries to Hague to dispute the incorporation (of Liancourt Rocks by Japan, I guess). However, as far as I know, the mission of emissaries was to declare the invalidity of the Eulsa Treaty. Is there any source that shows that the emissaries also tried to complain about the issue of Liancourt Rocks at Hague? -- Kamuichikap ( talk) 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that why the title of this article became 'Liancourt Rocks' is not because it was the first name given, but because the naming dispute which was not desirable. The description about the name can induce misinterpretation while both side argue that the island was known far before 1849. Isn't it desirable to add short mention of the naming dispute and the poll which happended ? Jtm71 ( talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I really mind editing this article, however, the recent editions by User:Lexico makes me worry for not only his introducing incorrect information (now deleted Hague Secret Emissary Affair) but also his editing habit. I don't know what background you have since you appear to be a new editor. I think you should read the rules in the green box on the talk page. You also seem to ignore the common guideline of WP:Quote and WP:V. You must not repeat the same contents in the quote secession in the tree languages : English, Korean, Japanese since here is "English Wikipedia". If there is no English source, foreign language sources are accepted as inline citations, however the site ( http://www.mofa.go.jp/ ) provides English document, so your repeating the same content not only is redundant but also looks like promoting the site and content.
Besides, you should not use "unreliable sites". The current inline ref 17, 18 do seem to be as such. Moreover, you have to discuss things before you insert "large chunk of information" to the article. -- Caspian blue ( talk)
I do not know why the reference was requested. While the relation of the island and the name was well known, I think the user needed more than that. Anyone but a historian can misjudge(or mislead) the historical fact, moreover, the event happened 160 years ago. Jtm71 ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to see when Japan said terra nullius.-- Opp2 ( talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
To Jtm71
The meaning of terra nullius is not "no man land" but is "a territory not belong to any particular country(BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY)." Terra nullius is not "無人島" but is "無主地" in Japanese.--
Opp2 (
talk) 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To Caspian blue
Prof. Park is not interpreting the claim of Japan as the incorporation of terra nullius. Sources of Japanese claim that he is using is as follows.
I confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the diplomatic document on July 13, 1962. I also confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the Japanese diplomatic document to Korea on July 13,1953 and so on. When did Japan say "terra nullius"? I cannot verify which is correct, because Sean Fern's thesis never mention about his sources of Japanese claim which must say as a terra nullius.(his reference is describe only as "molvo") -- Opp2 ( talk) 11:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/japan-error-Kor16.jpg
" 明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 別紙內務大臣請議無人島所屬ニ關スル件ヲ審議スルニ、右ハ北緯三十七度九分三十秒東經百三十一度五十五分隱岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五浬ニ在ル無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、一昨三十六年本邦人中井養三郞ナル者ニ於テ漁舍ヲ構ヘ、人夫ヲ移シ獵具ヲ備ヘテ海驢獵ニ着手シ今回領土編入竝二貸下ヲ出願セシ所、此際所屬及島名ヲ確定スルノ必要アルヲ以テ、該島ヲ竹島ト名ケ自今島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲サントスト謂フニ在リ、依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ、之ヲ本邦所屬トシ島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲シ差支無之儀ト思考ス依テ請議ノ通閣議決定相成可然ト認ム"
"他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" (...It seems that this island was not occupied by any countries...)
I was so tempted to revert your edit, however other already did. Because your revert constitutes original research and factual error as you altering the description on attached Korean sources like Dokdomuseum. [6] You must provide your own source for the claim that Japan "reaffirm" their sovereignty. There is no such description on the source, rather the site says like the below.
Japan’s Meiji Government affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory. This is a reliable site affiliated with Government of South Korea, so that you inserted your own interpretation or thought without source. According to the source, "Japan affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory", not "Japan affirmed that the islands was Japanese territory. Please don't falsify information. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/japan-error-Kor16.jpg
" 明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 別紙內務大臣請議無人島所屬ニ關スル件ヲ審議スルニ、右ハ北緯三十七度九分三十秒東經百三十一度五十五分隱岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五浬ニ在ル無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、一昨三十六年本邦人中井養三郞ナル者ニ於テ漁舍ヲ構ヘ、人夫ヲ移シ獵具ヲ備ヘテ海驢獵ニ着手シ今回領土編入竝二貸下ヲ出願セシ所、此際所屬及島名ヲ確定スルノ必要アルヲ以テ、該島ヲ竹島ト名ケ自今島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲サントスト謂フニ在リ、依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ、之ヲ本邦所屬トシ島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲シ差支無之儀ト思考ス依テ請議ノ通閣議決定相成可然ト認ム"
"他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" (...It seems that this island was not occupied by any countries...)
Thank you for your ORIGINAL RESERCH. But I think that you cannot understand Japanese basic term.
The following are the first statement, claim and interpretation by Japanese government about incorporation in 1905.
She never said "terra nullius". Then Prof.Park judged that Japanese govermental claim is as a coexisting theory. Thank you.-- Opp2 ( talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it in is not Japan but Korea that interpreted the claim of Japan first, as "terra nullius occupation" on the Diplomatic letter from Korea to Japan in February 10, 1954. Then "terra nullius theory" is not Japanese claim by Japanese government but Japanese claim created or interpreted by Korean government. Therefore, any thesis cannot present the source that Japan said "terra nullius".-- Opp2 ( talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard out of all the funnymen in wikipedia, your post is quoteworthy. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to cite biased websites. Both the South Korean and Japanese government sites contradict each other, how the hell are you supposed to write an article that makes sense if you use both? Good friend100 ( talk) 01:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Goodfriend says that "I dont think MOFA or any Korean government sites can be used in this article." North East Asian Hishory Funda[y]ion who is the owner of the Cyber Dokdo History Hall [8] was established by President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea. And, the South Korea government is investing. However Cyber Dokdo History Hall is cited now. Is Cyber Dokdo History Hall appropriate as a source?
Cyber Dokdo Hiostory Hall is an advertising site of the Korea government by the Korea government for the Korea government. -- Opp2 ( talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The chaotic state displayed in the two preceding sections ("terra nullius" and "Opp2: Original research and factual error?") is the natural result of several factors including (1) Deemphasised representation of historical documents declaring respective sovereignties (2) Ignorance of the literal contents of said documents partly due to the under-representation (3) Misreading of academic articles, and original research based on such misperception
As is the case in many popular discussions and debates, source documents are treated poorly, resulting in odd POV's that do not adequately reflect reality either historical or current. Hence I propose a uniform style of presenting each POV, wherever appropriate, as follows.
A. Primary Official Source: what each legally binding historical document says specifying the official governmental view at that time
B. Government's Current Claim if differing from above: what each government says now specifying in which public announcement or diplomatic document
C. Popular View if differing from either of above: what a non-governmental body such as the acedemia, NGO's, or a private author has published that has had a significant impact on public perception
Regarding the case of Liancourt Rocks being a terra nullius for instance, the format could be realised as follows:
(A-1) Japan's 1905 Cabinet decision of Jan 28 states: "There is no evidence to recognise that this unihabited island was ever occupied by a foreign country... recognising occupation has occurred in terms of international law as evidenced through relevant records that a person by the name of Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) has relocated to said island in 1903 (Meiji 36) and have since practiced fishing there..."
"明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 ... 無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、... 依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ." (from Danceneveril's transcription)
source: Japanese Cabinet document "隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス", pp. 1-3 (on images 1 and 2) in '公文類聚' Vol. 29, 1905(明治三十八年) book 1 ( http://www.jacar.go.jp with search key 隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス)
(A-2) The Japanese government statement on Feb 10, 1954, makes reference to the 1905 Feb 28 Cabinet decision, which sought legitimacy under international law that occupation of a previously unclaimed territory had occurred by 1905. While the 1954 diplomatic document only emphasises that "the intention of the State to acquire terriroy" was "confirmed" and "a public anouncement ... was made" which had "satisfied the requirement under international law", it does not explicitly state how legitimacy was obtained in the first place but only that it had been "confirmed". In the absence of a revision on a previous claim made in 1905, i.e. legitimacy based on prior occupation of a terra nullius, some scholars interpret this document as a continuation of the claim as follows.
"Japan in announcing prior occupation of territory ... the measure has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law."
source: MOFA of Korea, Tokdo kwan'gye charyojip (Collection of Data on Tokdo) (I) Wangbok oegyio munso (Diplomatic Correspondence Exchanged); Chipmu charyo (Reference Material for Staff), (Seoul: MFA, 1997), p. 55 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, pp. 365-366
The Japanese government switched from its previous claim of "Prior occupation of a terra nullius" to a claim of "inherent territory" not later that 1962. MOFA of Japan stated in a memoramdum of Jul 3, 1962, "The Japanese government has made clear the postition of its claim that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times and is now reconfirming repeatedly that position."
source: MFA, op. cit., supra n. 5, pp. 234, 236, 250 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, p. 361
left blank in the absence of an alternate claim that is neither "Prior occupation" or "Inherent territory"
--- end of sample ---
Please share your opinions on this matter as the non-analytic nature of certain parts of the two previous talk sections are draining of our resources and collective efforts which really ought to be directed elsewhere. The sample paragraph offered here is a sample only which ought to be further worked on for brevity and conformity to wiki syntax and style.
Lex (
talk) 08:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Special thanks!! I have this original image.
I will present the original. I think that the truth is clarified. By the way, a lot of mistakes falsifications are found in the Kim Myung-Ki's thesis.--
Opp2 (
talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
basic terms and meanings
For instance, after WW2, Japan was occupied("占領") by Allied Power. However, there is no scholar who assumes that the Allied Power occupied terra nullius. It is necessary to prove that Japan used word "無主地(terra nullius) or "先占(prior occupation)" for terra nullius theory. Then Kim Myung-Ki says that Japan stated as follows. The Japanese government stated on ""Feb 10, 1954"", "Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory ... has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law." However, Japan didn't say "prior occupation." [9] [10] This is a reason why the prof. Park did not assume the insistence of Japanese Government to be terra nullius and contradiction. -- Opp2 ( talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex ( talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) edits completed at Lex ( talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Originally, Japanese note in Feb 10, 1954 is English. Here [11] is all negotiation record between Japan and Korea.
First of all, you should withdraw impolite words against me after you read. Next, I demand to verify a present article again. The sea lion hunting is not described at all. It is an insistence of Korea that wants to emphasize the invasion (Though it is admitted even military activities on International Law). And please answer my above questions above. -- Opp2 ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note for Opp2: "No prior occupation by foreign country" LOGICAL AND "positive occupation offically recognised" === "Prior occupation" This is not original research as you claim; it is a result of applying 1-step deductive logic that falls outside the area of Original Research.]
??? Is this a evidence of terra nullius? The meaning of "無人島" is not "無主地(terra nullius)" but is a uninhabited island.-- Opp2 ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Although you have not apologised for defaming Prof. Kim for an inaccurate reading on your part, I will, for your odd reading of text is less due to a lack of intelligence or lack of education, but more due to your political agenda that does not include historical accuracy but more bent on revisionism for the needs of the present. Hence I retract my claim that you need to return to junior high school. Yet please conduct yourself in a way that is more civil and intelligible, which will surely improve the quality of wiki experience for every one of us. I have revised clause (A-2) to accommodate your objection which has helped me to improve the sample article section. Although it was inconceivable that one could retract one's previous claim etched in stone in an unambiguous, legally binding document, I must accept that some will actually do this in reality, and that on a national level. I have experienced a genuine expansion of my horizon by this unique discussion with you. If I might ask, is your view shared by many other Takeshima activists if I may presume you to be one? Whatever the case, I must thank you for sharing the full set of diplomatic documents「竹島/独島問題」に関する日韓両国往復外交文書(1952〜76) by Prof. Fjuhara Yuji 福原裕二. Unfortunately it is locked rendering it unprintable; do you have access to a printable one as well? I would appreciate it if you could share it with us if it is not a great problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Kim's thesis is here.
[12] Prof. Daijyudo pointed out that quotations of Kim's thesis are inaccurate and improper.
<ex>
Prof.Kim insisted that there was a notification obligation for prior occupation. And, he wrote that the William E. Hall supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.
The notification obligation concerning only the Africa coast was provided by “The Act of Berlin”. The original of the Hall is here.
[13]
[14] Prof.Kim ommited the word of "Nevertheless". And, he disregarded the footnote. Then he interpreted the description of the Hall as an opposite meaning. Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is his thesis a credible source?--
Opp2 (
talk) 11:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
<ex2>
Prof.Kim wrote that the M.F.Lindley supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.
Prof.Kim quoted "CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION" However, there is a chapter of "CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION" in Lindley's book.
[15]
[16] Lindley was described clearly as "Notification not legally necessary". Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is Prof.Kim a scholar?--
Opp2 (
talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And, he mistekes that Japan stated as a prior occupation. --
Opp2 (
talk) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The condition of this island [17] correspond to "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク(absence of any foreign occupation)." Because there are no national flag, no person, no facility and no signs which shows the country. In this island, there is no artificial one at all.
This is a part of the judicial precedent of Palmas. M. Huber said that two occupations are necessary.
I am looking forward to your answer.-- Opp2 ( talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex (
talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex (
talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Q1-3 is very important for this section, because it shows the recognition or definition of your "占領". I understood that you cannot understand the meaning of "占領". The meaning of "占領" is physical and effective occupation by miritaly force or administrative agency on the island. Therefore, 中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住(Nakai migrated to Takeshima) was judged as "占領". This island [18] is not terra nullisu(Japanese island) but is "無占領". Then Japan can "占領(physical and effective occupation)" this island tomorow by military forces but the Japanese "占領" action doesnot mean the island is tarra nullius. The logic of your original research has collapsed. -- Opp2 ( talk) 02:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the existence of a legally binding international treaty between Korea and Japan that affects the status of Liancourt Rocks at the time of the Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905: the Japan-Korea Protocol of 1904 which stipulates as follows
"Article 3: The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire." (emphasis added by contributor)
The Japanese Cabinet decision to "incorporate Liancourt Rocks" is in direct conflict with Article 3 of this protocol, and hence is null and void. This conclusion receives support by at least two scholars of international law and Japanese history: Francis Rey of France and Yamabe Gentaro of Japan. (links and citations pending) Lex ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Observing the non-standard, and obviously revisionist, reading of the Jan 28, 1904, decision of the Japanese Cabinet as amply shown by Opp2's testimony, a seperate subsection independent of the Shimane notice is called for. It is close to impossible to read the Cabinet decision of Jan 28 except as "incorporation of a terra nullius", and more than a handful of Japanese scholars also concur to this standard reading, Yamabe Gentaro 山邊健太郞, Kajimura Hideki 梶村秀樹, Naito Seichu 內藤正中, and Hori Kazuo 堀和生. Yet as the Japanese government found it difficult to refute the overwhelming historical evidence from both Korea and Japan showing otherwise, and on the other hand found it rather easier to show recent evidence of "effective control" since the Cabinet decision, this seems to be on the forefront of the Japanese claim to Liancourt Rocks. This is definitely not neutral POV, as other evidence is being suppressed. Hence the need to return to the original text that lies at the heart of the debate. Lex ( talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss anything with someone who reads into everything. You really need to read historical text as is, not by infusing your derivative wishes into it. That does not even amount to interpretation, but becomes pure distortion. If you want a bibliography, such I shall provide. Please dig up some of the sample articles to the effect that everyone can share their full contents, as is only fitting for a wiki editorial team. Nevertheless, I must remind you there is little to interpret. A straightforward reading of the documents bearing on the 1905 Cabinet Decision of Jan 28, 1905, is quite illuminating in itself. Of course, scholarly analysis is always helpful to guide our reasons to subtle nooks and crannies. Yet one must abstain from indulging in subtle delicacies only as it is said, "The Master should always walk the straight path." 君子大路行
Lex ( talk) 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
About 1904 Japan-Korea treaty part
Please present souces before your edit.--
Opp2 (
talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Helllo, Sennen goroshi, Your revised setence sounds fine with the passive construction; the verb comprise is a rather versatilve word in the transitive sense of the verb, which allows both voices, the active and the passive. Allow me to convey some natural constructions from the Random House Uabridged below.
1. "The United States of America comprises 50 states." : in the sense of "to include", "to consist of"; transitive verb; active voice; usage since 15th century
2. "Fifty states comprise the United States of America." : in the sense of "to form or constitute"; transitive verb; active voice; since late 18th century
3. "The United States of America is comprised of 50 states" : in the sense of"to consist of, be composed of"; transitive verb; passive voice; since late 19th century
Hence it appears either contruction is acceptable with preference more depending on personal style and taste rather than any prescriptive ruling. A discussion on the topic can be found at URL= http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=47429&page=3
Nevertheless, I am a bit troubled by the treatment of the proper noun Liancourt Rocks as a grammatical plural when what is referred to is one grammatical entity with a singular grammatical number as can be seen in similar examples;
"The United States has become a superpower since it prevailed over the Axis Powers; English has firmly established itself as a world language replacing French as a language of international relations."
"The Philippines is where I was born."
"The Himalayas is the mountain range of which Mt. Everest has some of the highest peaks."
Hence grammar dictates "Liancourt Rocks comprises" or "Liancourt Rocks is comprised of". Lex ( talk) 02:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Some corrections and reverts occurred as a result of a brief grammatical discussion in my talk page. Contibuting comments from Future Perfect at Sunrise were reflected as individual reverts in the article text. Lex ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that sometime after WWII, South Korea took physical control of the Liancourt Rocks. When did this happen, and how? I'm amazed that there's no mention of it in the article. Does anyone know the answer? I can't even find an answer on Google. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Krtek2125 ( talk · contribs) and Clownface ( talk · contribs), please remember that this article is still under a strict zero tolerance policy against edit warring. All reverts except those of obvious vandalism or extremely blatant tendentiousness must be discussed in advance, with ample time allowed for discussion before the revert. I could have blocked you both at this point. Just a reminder instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I put back the link to the external message board before seeing the warning. My apolgies. The link I have added has been added to North Gyoengsan's Cyber-Dokdo page. This website reflects the position of the Korean government as is added as an external link. Tell Krtek to stop deleting it without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the external link above and it was removed, twice without reason by KRTEK. Why? The website is linked to Korea's Cyber Dokdo Homepage and thus representative of the Korean governments position on the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see [19]. This appears on the face of it to breach the terms of engagement as this is an undiscussed removal of a disputed link. Spartaz Humbug! 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 the site is linked to the Korean government's Cyber Dokdo Page. Additionally dokdo-takeshima.com is already cited for part of wiki's article. See citation #47 below. Please don't be disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp as I've mentioned, I don't know why you are upset, dokdo-takeshima.com has been externally linked by #47 for a long time.
The link has just been moved to the top. The Shimane Prefecture website obviously does not endorse the views of all the websites linked on her page some of them are Korean. Dokdo-Takeshima.com is endorsed by Gyeongsan Province. The Shimane Prefecture page you linked is just a link database and the other website you linked to is not even a website, it's just a blog. Again don't be so disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 you are being silly. If Professor Funasugi wants to put his reputation on the line by citing blogs that's his prerogative and own his personal opinion. Blogs are not websites
Blogs that post articles written by anonymous posters on a forum that doesn't even provide basic data such as WHOIS information have no more credibility than those who scrawl on a bathroom wall. Clownface ( talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 the posters on the "blog" you describe are anonymous. Blogs are out, as the list mentions. Unless you consider whoever "Pacifist" and "Kaneganese" are as their real name which of course is not true. Of the three that people that post data on the blog you are referring to, two are phantom posters Opp2. This means at least 66% of the data is from anonymous ghost writers. Writing that has doubt about who authored it, is not acceptable. Read the rules.
As mentioned dokdo-takeshima.com represents the position of the Korean government hence it is linked to North Gyeongsan Provinces website. Obviously if the provincial government considers the dokdo-takeshima.com of high enough standard to be affiliated with their website, they feel it has credibility.
You say the information on dokdo-takeshima.com is contentious. The whole subject of Dokdo Takeshima is "contentious".
Wikipedia has been citing dokdo-takeshima for months now and you haven't said a word. What's the sudden sense of urgency Opp2? Have you found a new bone of contention on wiki to harass posters about? Please stop being disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2, you have to understand just you don't agree with some data doesn't make something "contentious" if this were the case I'd request every link from Japan's government be removed. We should "be careful" when we quote self-publlished material but you have to remember all data was at one point published by someone. Whether you like it or not, the website in question is used by the Korean provincial government as an expression of their stance on the Dokdo issue and thus is relevent and equally admissable as any published writing.
Please find a more positive way to contribute to wikipedia instead of trying to suppress and censor data you feel damages Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks. The link has been here for some time. Leave it alone. Clownface ( talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've posted the external link again and it was ripped down. This has been discussed and consented upon. I'm going to put it up again. This site is linked and part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page. Please do not remove again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is dokdo-takeshima.com part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page? If so, why do we need this external link? We already have an external link to the top page of Cyber Dokdo. I believe that the author of dokdo-takeshima.com is an American high school teacher and not a detachment of Cyber Dokdo.-- Krtek2125 ( talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
dokdo-takeshima.com is linked to North Gyeonsan Province webpage so obviously the data is concurs with the Korean Government's side of the dispute. There is plenty of data and maps on the site that the Korean Provincial Government's English page does not have, so it could be helpful. From what I understand much of the data is gathered and translated on behalf of the Korean government.
As I've mentioned the page has already been linked and cited for some time and there hasn't been a problem. Clownface ( talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this important to set up an independent part ? Then I have three questions.
Approve? Are you sure that is the right word, or are you just trying to be funny? Legitimacy, or Mandate if you will, derives from the will of the people to autonomous government. This modern tenet of origin of state authority could be something that some closet-case Tenno worshipers or the ultra right fascist nationionalist might find difficult to comprehend. The Korean Provisional Government in exile was founded as a result of the proclamation of independence, March 1, 1919, on the occasion of the late Emperor Gojong's funeral who was rumoured to have been poisoned by the Tenno's agent in Seoul. The ancient regime had died, and a new nation was born. Thus the Government in exile had all the legitimacy it needed, except the Japanese agents who usurped power, the people, and the territory; a blatant violation of the 1904 Protocol and the 1905 Agreement to name just two. Words can come cheap, so why are you here if you do not intend to keep the trust? Lex ( talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I relayed a simple historical event in a simple translation into English; interpretation in terms of international law is not my job here. I do not offer free legal advice. Please further your legal queries to the appropriate authorities in whom you entrust your judicial judgements. Lex ( talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Lexico's most recent edit seems to have inserted large passages of Wikipedia talk page discussion into a footnote in article space. Can I please ask you not to do that. Wikipedia discussion is not something that should be documented in article space; it is, in fact, the very paradigm of "original research". How we here "interpret" a given source should be of no concern; in fact, if a source is in need of any non-trivial "interpretation" at all and that interpretation is not provided by independent, reliable secondary sources, the primary source should not be used at all. In Lexico's additions, it is often difficult to judge how much of the material presented is in fact original research, since the text quite often makes interpretative statements about primary sources and then quotes only those primary sources, not a secondary source that interprets them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, Future Perfect at Sunrise, with all due respect, I provide the following which are considered acceptable in wikipedia and Not Original Research.
If you consider my summaries as overly long, I shall cut down in quantity. That foot note will be managed to fit encyclopedia standards, but that is a summary, which you do not see as one. Fine, I shall take care of it. On the other hand, I would appreciate it if you got to moderating such unruly behaviour as Opp2 has demonstrated e.g. inserting foot note material into the text proper, throwing the article section out of context, and thus rendering it illegible. Thank you. Lex ( talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2: If you want to keep the report in the article and not in the foot notes, start a new section. If you would rather keep the report in the 1900 section, move it to the foot notes, as it is blatantly misleading as well. Not stating the time of the report could be considered intentional.
Yet I must remind you that claim and report have ended in a disgrace to the debate. With all the studies and translation work as Mr Sugino boasts, he can't handle a simple compound sentence? I doubt it was an innocent mistake. Is it only me who suspects it was rather intentional?
You have also failed to provide relevant sources:
Feb 2, 2008, Mr 杉野洋明, Sugino Youmei, blog page on Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906
http://ameblo.jp/nidanosuke/entry-10059918345.html
Feb 22, Sanin chuou shimpo, local newspaper article reporting on Mr Sugino's claim http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=500527006
Apr 3, 2008, 유미림, Korea Maritime Institute, analysis of Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906 http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000005/1256.pdf
Jun 30, 2008, Yoo, Mirim, Korea Maritime Institute, Critical Review of Japanese Seokdo Denial http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000007/23-01-06.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Dr Yu's article points out Sugino's obvious misreading of a coordinating conjunctional verb suffix '-오' in Korean (Hwangsoeng Shinmun, '郡廳은台霞洞에在하고該郡所管島 는竹島石島오東西가六十里오南北이四十里니合이二百餘里라고하얏다어라') dictates that the following predicate phrase have its own subject or topic word, which is left unstated in the 1906 article (Yu, pp. 5-6). The possibilities include Ulleung County as Sugino prefers, and Ulleung Is as Resident-General requested. Actually it is neither; the unstated topic word is Uldo Is as Ulleung Is had been renamed to Uldo Is on Oct 25, 1900 (Official Gazette, Oct 27, 1900). The Resident-General's office was either feigning ignorance of the 1900 Imperial Decree or blatantly ignoring it as all embassies and cosular offices of foreign states were served all editions of the Official Gazette published by the Korean Government in 1900. Sugino not only fails to note this irregularity in the ignorance demonstrated by the Resident General's office, but aggarates the misunderstanding by mistranslating it into a subordinating conjunctional suffix -で、 in Japanese (Sugino, '郡廳は台霞洞に置き、該郡所管島 はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので、合せて二百余里だという') to the effect of creating a conflict that does not exist in the original text in question. This fact alone effectively takes away the essence of Sugino's thesis.
So here are your choices; either remove the faux pas claim, or face the danger of being labeled a devious, partisan trouble maker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Lex ( talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Lex ( talk) 04:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Read what? You didn't provide anything to read up on except the mistranslation and an unidentified image. Please point to Mr Gerry Bever's web publication where he first made the date-stamped claim; this is only proper and expected as you know very well. Lex ( talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 1900 Decree and the 1905 Decision are on totally different levels; Korea never said 'incorporation' as all the savage lands and waters had long been conquered as far as they were concerned. Thus the decree was simply a reorganisation of administrative boundaries and hierarchies, whereas the 1905 Decision was a cheap copy of European domination over the New World, which lead to contradictions and an infinitely recurring falsification to cover up missing logic; it will never work as logic transcends perception and even the ravaging forces of time. One reporter who did a tour of Japan to investigate the New History Group about a decade ago observed the lack of morale, morality, and public leadership advised, "Relearn your Confucianism!" I say there is nothing to relearn, as it had never taken root in the first place. Philosophy is what is lacking, the power of pure reason that has a universal appeal to all mankind, the only way to ascend to a higher level of existence instead of mere subsistence that worms do very well. Lex ( talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of work has been invested not to miss any major document in this very, very confusing, uncoordinated, unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either. Hence the great difficulty in dealing with such complex jungle of claims and notices, and stretching interpretations. My point is, does anyone find this section extremely difficult to read? Does the sheer bulk of material, points of views, interests, and strategic assessments that constantly shift, realign, and eventually contradict themselves give you a head spin and an eye-sore? Someone familiar with the material, please put in some paragraphing so the form of presenting material does not bog down what could otherwise be a very intriguing period. How about 3~4 paragraphs along the axis of US' State Department policy towards Japan combined with the other variable of US Forces engaging with DPRK-PRC forces in Korea? In addition, the bombing incidents over Liancourt Rocks, of which 1948's and 1952's were most lethal, should also have a place in this article. What are the opinions of my fellow wikipedians on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) <priority>
Please select the source based on common sense and international law.-- Opp2 ( talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not helping the situation by making snide remarks toward other editors. Also, I'm not sure if you were trying to sound neutral, but if you were, this comment gave you away: "unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either." Honestly, things like this are why this article has become a lost cause. People can't get off their nationalist high horses to make a neutral, informative article. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
On topic, any positive suggestions on improving the clarity of the section regardless of POV? All this finger pointing is beginning to turn distasteful, as is an uninformed remark. An improved format need not be biased; a discussion of one need not be either. Whither, fellow wikipedians? Lex ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Japan claims that there is no evidence to identify the island "Sokdo" as Liancourt Rocks, [28] [29] and that there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905. [30]
I concur with your judgement that Opp2's claim in the article text in question and Prof Park, Ki Kap's thesis (s)he quotes as source is in error, in a classical case of a Non Sequitur. The following is the full paragraph from which Opp2 claims to find support:
Therefore I endorse Mansonfamily's accurate perception and decisive action of removing a logically false claim disguised as objective encylcopedia material. Lex ( talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinhoo, although I could understand you might feel strongly about in what order the two countries appear, it is inappropriate to revise how the Japanese call it in their country; that is not scientific. While Koreans have every right to call it 한일의정서, Han'il uijongso, and 韓日議定書, so do the Japanese in saying 日韓議定書, and Nikkan Giteisho. The reason why I put both forms in parenthetical notes was to give balance by showing both forms preferred by respective countrymen, countrywomen, and countrychildren; or should I have said, countrywomen, countrymen, and countrychildren? Chill it, please. Lex ( talk) 10:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinoo, renaming an English name for the same geogrphical landscape will solve nothing, help little. Although Korean names for the sea might have had initial favor in early travelogues and maps, the Japanese designation has gained popularity over time due to its greater impact on world history, or at least in the minds of English speakers since the opening of Japanese ports to Commodore Perry. Korea had lagged behind in its modernisation efforts, which was admirably planned, but eventually failed. If the failure in Korea's attempt is disappointing, renaming Sea of Japan to Sea of Korea or the Eastern Sea should serve little purpose. It should rather serve better purpose as a reminder to modern Koreans to never to lose sight to current tasks as the elite of the late Joson and Korean Empire have demonstrated, not to engage in backward naming wars. Please contrubte in a positive manner; there's a lot of work to do, and what you have done is intellectually lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. Why not visit the local libraries and try to read some serious articles to see if you can find some relevant material that might help everyone understand the issue better? Lex ( talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"On that date, a party of 44 officials from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo. The Japanese officials, including Kanda Yoshitaro, traveled to Ulleungdo by way of Dokdo, and informed Sim Heung-taek, then Magistrate of Ulleungdo, that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan."
I think dokdo should be changed to the neutral term of Liancourt Rocks here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.4.45 ( talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 23 |
{editprotected} As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance {{Redirect|Liancourt|the town in France|Liancourt, Oise}}. Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. Markussep Talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If one doesn't believe the inclusion of Dokdo from Ulleungdo(Sp?) and the Korean claims from the Silla times, please read below... |
---|
"Furthermore, Korean Government took necessary legal and administrative actions to meet even the elements of the modern international law in the appropriate process of acquiring land, and published the actions by the Official Gazette issued by the Central Government on October 25, 1900, five years earlier than the ineffective action by a Japanese Province of Shimaneken Publish Notice No. 40 dated Feb 28, 1905.
Korean Official Gazette dated October 27(Saturday), 1900 published Rescript No. 41as follows(Excerpt) :43))
Subject : To name the "Ullundo Island" as Ulldo Island and reform the title of the Island administrator from the "Supervisor" to the Chief of the Country.
Article 1 : Ullundo Island is hereby renamed as "Ulldo Island" and annexed to Kangwondo Province. The title of the Supervisor of the Island is reformed as the chief of the county and is hereby included in the Central Government Organization as the Rank of Class 5.
Article 2 : The location of the country building is settled at Daeha-dong and the scope of the jurisdiction of the county covers all the Ullungdo area, Jukdo Island and "the Rocks Islets"(i.e. the Dokdo Islets).
Article 3 : ...............................
Article 4 : County budget is to be kept to the level of the Rank of Class 5. As the budget is insufficient in the inchoate period of time and there must be a variety of issues to be settled, supplement necessary expenses directly from the taxes collected from the Island.
Article 5 : As to other items, take appropriate actions in accordance with progress of its development.
King Kwangmu Reign 4th year October 25.
(Sealed by His Majesty)
Cabinet (acting) Secretary, Home Affairs Minister Lee Kun Ha
Implementation Order.
Reading the Rescript, attention is invited to the name of the "Rocks Islets" that fell in the jurisdiction of Chief of the County Ulldo Island by the provision of the Article 2. The name "Rocks Islets(石島)" is the very "Liancourt Rocks" which is one of many names aforementioned for it. For the "Rocks Islets", for example, there are two means of writing in accordance with the Korean way of expression, by either "Dokdo Islets" or "Sukdo Islets" because the Korean has two letters for "Rocks", one is "Dok" and the other, "Suk". There are some examples for the name "Rocks" still in practical usage of the two ways at present in mainland of Korea.44))
The Dokdo Islets are a part of Korean territory on the ground of early historical record(Since A.D 512), and also, the Rescript verifies the fact that the Royal Korean Government at the time has taken proper actions for the sovereignty over "The Dokdo Islets" even in light of the modern international law as already shown." Quoted from http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-a1.htm |
Please visit the site for more evidence of that Korea does in fact own soverignty over the islands against Japan's claim from 1905. As for me, if one can disprove the document which also listed it's sources then I'll join the JPOV.
AHeartInSolitude ( talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)February 27, 2008
The islets are known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally solitary island) in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) in Japanese. The English name Liancourt Rocks is derived from Le Liancourt, the name of the French whaling ship whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849.
Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) -> Takeshima (たけしま/竹島, Takeshima , literally bamboo island) Change please Caomengde ( talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your article on Liancourt Rocks reads as follows. "..Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate..."
Actually, it should read "...Japan annexed the islands about a year after her military occupied Korea as a protectorate..."
Japanese forces landed in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. Her soldiers marched into Seoul and after weeks of intimidation Korea signed the Japan~Korea Protocol on Feburary 26th 1904, which "allowed" the Japanese military to appropriate Korean land deemed of military strategic value.
Here is the link to the document, from the 1904 American Foreign Affairs archives. Please see Article IV paragraph two.
I will edit this problem later. Thanks Clownface ( talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add this as an External Link? http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/index.html there may be a japanese equivalent, but i don't know what it might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.76.15.52 ( talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
what means dokdo? 'dok' means not solitary, but stone(Jeolla dialect). -Sallim Cheosa(korean)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.83.85 ( talk) 09:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I found that Sept. 25, 1900( Gojong 38 ) when Joseon set aside Uleungdo as a county, they mentioned about Stone island. some Koreans think the Stone island is Dokdo, the rocks. So 石島 is not unrelated to 獨島. -- Cheol ( talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
독도는 우리땅! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.53.76.40 ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just warned User:Logitech95 of the terms of engagement after an undiscussed blind revert to the article. Further disruptive edits may result in sanctions with no further warning required. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese's claim Silla's record only indicate Ulleung Island about 200miles far away from Takeshima. Takeshima belongs to Hoki country from Edo era.
However, the Koreans have rejected this claim by arguing that the Japanese claim over the islets was the first step towards Japan's eventual claim over the rest of Korea. Korea was then forced to become a Japanese protectorate in 1905 after King Kojong was forced to abdicate his throne.
In Dec 1949 United Nation's GHQ decided Takashima belongs to Japan (see photo)
In August 1951,South Korea requested US let Japan give up Dokto/Takeshima,but US secretary of states David Dean Rusk reserch the historical dispute and rejected South Korea's Request by Rusk Letter2P. 1P 2P 3P 4P
In January 1952, South Korea's Syngman Rhee line declaration included Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory. Since September 1954, Japan has proposed adjudicating this problem in the International Court of Justice but South Korea has both refused to accept this proposal or to acknowledge the dispute, likely based on various grounds. [1] North Korea supports the South Korean claim as is often expressed through their KCNA news organ.
2008 South Korea Gov suddenly complained to Japanese Gov to Deliet the article of Takeshima/Dokt despute from Japanese History/Geography Text Book (But South Korea's Text book Clearly describe Dokto Blongs to SK) Japanese Gov orderd moderate of their Textbook but SK shut down their Japan embassy.-- Jack330 ( talk) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
theres nothing to pick up from here. Good friend100 ( talk) 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Jack330, you seem to be confusing the legal basis of the Rusk Documents. They are simply a negotiating position prior to the San Francisco Treaty. And because of this, they have little bearing on the eventual outcome of the status of Liancourt Rocks. Dean Rusk essentially was stating that (he 'thought') the rocks were Japanese territory, and therefore the SF treaty did not need to deal with their status. So they are less relevant than they appear. I do hope that Japanese wikipedia does not parrot the line "In Dec 1949 United Nation's GHQ decided Takashima belongs to Japan" because the Rusk Documents are just that: documents. They are not legal agreements. Macgruder ( talk) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of current references stands on Korean view and redundant. I recommend to elminate some part of these and at least we should add Japan's official issue below.
"Outline of the Issue of Takeshima" http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html
Lssrt ( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to insist one side. Just try to depict diffrence of stance. Liancourt Rocks are just same as other thoudands of offshore rocks which nobody cares, if it was not in international dispute. So issue from both side should be center topic for informative encycropedia.
Looking at current small international dispute section and biased reference section, I cannot understand how Fut.Perf think the form of this article should be, especially from "Neautral point of view". I think we should have both side of outline issue. (Paldochongdo topic should be one of that, which you deleted.) Lssrt ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is rather inaccurate and conflicts with another post on wikipedia.
Japan incorporated the islands just a few years before they occupied Korea in 1910. After Japanese troops were forced out in 1945 and Korea regained its independence - the islands is part of that as well. Korea has controlled the islands for 50 years and to raise the issue that the islands belong to Japan is silly. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aDi.oz3fJEGg&refer=japan
The issue is not about pre-modern territorial disputes. The issue is about the islands that were effectively part of Korea throughout history until Korea was forcibly occupied by Japan and now there is a lot of backtracking as to why it was historically already Japan's. From a recent report: South Korea is sensitive about the islands, which were the first Korean territory to be annexed by Japan in 1905, presaging colonial conquest. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/japan-korea-renew-isles-row/2006/04/19/1145344155568.html
Also, to say that Korea was Japan's protectorate is extremely insulting to Koreans. It is as if you are saying that various European countries were protectorates of Nazi Germany.
Please change the phrased that Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan as it states on the Korea page. "In 1910, Korea was forcibly annexed by Japan and remained occupied until the end of World War II in August 1945."
Please also see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
Many Japanese leaders have since then acknowledged and apologized to Korea for its cruelties and attempts at cultural genocide during that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doryfish00 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
someone anoymously emailed me to post this link about the liancourt rocks. The site looks like a complete copy of wikipedia to me. And he wanted me to tell people at wikipedia to also check the talk page of the article, link posted below.
I have nothing to do with any of this please dont start up on me. Good friend100 ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel rather uneasy about the recent large additions to the dispute section by Lexico ( talk · contribs). These seem all directly sourced only to the primary sources in question. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We need a reliable, neutral secondary source in the form of a modern historian's treatment discussing the significance of these documents, not just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves.
Uncontrolled growth of this section on the basis of primary sources was one of the main causes of the chaos we had in this article last year, so I call for a thorough review and, if necessary, removal of these sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The text in the "International disputes" prior to my contribution began with the title "WWII" but mentioned the 1905 inclusion, which does not adequately address the details of the hows and the whys of the dispute, and was highly illogical. Not only does the 1905 Japanese incorporation occur more than three decades before the outbreak of the Lugouqiao Incident of 1937 that marked the Asian chapter of WWII, but the strong reaction in the Korean government regarding "Liancourt Rocks" becomes unintelligible without the 1900 Imperial Decree with which the 1905 incorporation comes into direct conflict as a matter of logic. So the rhetorical question to follow would be, "How would a wikipedia article address the 'dispute' without these two governmental documents that clashed head on?"
Your request to check the tendency of the "disputes section" to grow out of control is admirable, yet that should not equate to the removal of the subsections "1900" and "1905" dealing with these two pivotal historical documents. In such a case, I believe it is by far better policy to simply remove the "International disputes" section altogether as superficiality would be otherwise inevitable as a result.
In a way, I agree with the minimalist approach; nevertheless the "1877 Daijo-kan" subsection was a well thought out addition as that is also an important governmental document that has more than an insignificant bearing on the subject. Although I did not create it, I fully approve of the decision and clarity given in the subsection. As for Japan's MOFA claim that "another island is not Liancourt Rocks" (which was inaccurately ascribed to me in Lexico ( talk · contribs)), I am not fully aware of the details, and will offer my input if I can verify a reliable source that is traceable to the original document.
As for the inclusion of the two original documents, they are in the public domain. Hence I disagree with your comment "just a list of the documents sourced only to themselves". Anyone who has researched the subject with any intellectual integrity couldn't possibly have missed what documents are the smoking guns. But like I said in a previous response, I omitted the web source as it was not in English, not becuase I was bent on monopolising the sources. What mattered to me most was that a legibly clear image in the public domain was available. My suggestion would be to google for images with the identifying key words; they are readily available to anyone as they are to me provided we spoke the same set of languages. Lex ( talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to Cite web rather than just put URIs into the article. Heroeswithmetaphors ( talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I shall cite web whenever I can find a website in English with comparable image quality. Currently I have enough trouble locating any image file that is reasonably legible, and finding one in an English web page multiplies the difficulty, but I shall give an honest effort to comply. Lex ( talk) 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, can we please cut back on the Recentism? This is an encyclopedia article, which should contain only information that will retain its significance and usefulness over the years. The details of daily news reporting don't belong here. Gory details of pheasant-slaughtering and all that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody dropped by and blindly reverted the whole dispute section to one of the hugely overblown, chaotic versions of last year, without even an attempt of discussion. This is totally unacceptable. That old article was stubbed back for a very good reason. It was terribly written, rambling, unstructured, with POV wholes gaping everywhere. I'll revert it tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
By experiencing that reverting back is repeated often, I think Korean and Japanese have their own claims which seem not possible to make a consensus. I suggest to write an FAQ which lists frequent claims and the WP's consensus on those, in order to let them know we recognized the issues. I hope the FAQ could prevent often reverting back. -- Cheol ( talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Historiographer, I noticed you added a wealth of historical material in the article on "Liancourt Rocks". While I admire the effort you put in, and admit that certain parts of it are quite true or at least deserving of serious attention, I am not quite sure if the majority should be included as the main text of the article. Quantitywise, the article length jumped from ca. 25 k to ca. 80 k just overnight, a threefold increase mostly from your input. That comes as a rather mild shock to one who has poured much care into every single word and addition making sure any addition would withstand the test of time. Some of the words you added are not properly suppported such as the following.
Quote "The Three Kingdoms period // In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do, was conquered and "re-integrated" into Silla."
Comment on relevance : How is the history-geography of Ulleung Is. relevant to that of Liancourt Rocks? The assumption needs to be stated explicitly no matter how plausible or intutive it might seem as there will be others from a neutral POV who do not readily subscribe to that view. For instance, your assumption could partially have been based on the archaeological evidence of whalers depicted on petroglyphs in Bangudae, Ulju, ( Bangudae Petroglyphs 울산 대곡리 반구대 암각화) that could suggest either Ulleung Is. and Liancourt Rocks had been within easy reach of the "Proto-Sillan" whalers of the late-neolithic to early bronze-age dwellers of present-day Ulsan, South Gyeongsang Province, but the actual analysis and interpretation of the archeological evidence has yet to be conducted and published in order to have any historical significance. In other words, the jump from physical geography to human geography, and that from archaeology-anthropology to history, do not come without labour in the form of a well-conducted, well-documented, critical study that shows the degree of certainty of the idea you wish to employ if indeed that were your intention.
Comment on historiographical accuracy : I am not certain at all as to what you might have meant by "island kingdom located on Ulleung-do" being "'re-integrated' into Silla." Had the island kingdom ever been part of Silla before the conquest of 512 CE? I am not aware of any study claiming that. Are you assuming the Silla-style pottery and other archeological finds unearthed on Ulleung Island dated to the 4th century is evidence that
(1) Silla had control over Ulleung Island before 512, that
(2) Ulleung Island had been a Silla colony, that
(3) colonialists on Ulleung Island of Silla origin had revolted some time before the 512 conquest, and that
(4) Silla had simply reclaimed its former colony in 512?
While I admit the possibility all of these being historical truths, three requirements must be met before you can make that claim.
A. hypothesis : an historian has proposed the possibilities of (1) through (4)
B. evidence : an historian has presented further evidence and reasoning to back up the claim of the hypothesis, which now becomes a "theory" for peer review
C. reference : you need to include at least the essence of the "theory" and also attribute the theory with the study in which it was published
In the absence of A, B, or C, we need to stay conservative; otherwise it becomes your Original Research that needs to be avoided as article material. (interesting theory by the way if one existed)
Another thing I've noticed is that an administrator considers your addition as a revert to last year's article. Although I am not certain if that is the case as I was not here when that happened, (s)he also announced that your additions will be undone. May I suggest you undo your recent additions and add a small quantity of material at a time so that other editors can have a chance to discuss and participate in improving the article as a whole? It looks highly likely that your additions will be axed anyway; it would be far better to police oneself than being censored by an organisational authority. Please take the necessary measures without delay. Hope to see your contributions in a more constructive light. Lex ( talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
edit: In view of the fact that an article on An, Yong Bok, in English does not exist, I have taken the liberty of creating a new article with the material that you supplied. My main reason was that there are simply too many details than would be deemed appropriate for the average viewer. The subsection of "The An, Yong Bok, Incident" is in serious need of a compressing down to the essence, leaving only a link to the minute details and whole exceprpts from original documents. I have not changed any text about An, Yong Bok, here or in the new article excluding formatting, linking, and romanisation matters. Lex ( talk) 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In the "International dispute" section, which is ironically under a great dispute right now, it is written that Emperor Gojong sent emissaries to Hague to dispute the incorporation (of Liancourt Rocks by Japan, I guess). However, as far as I know, the mission of emissaries was to declare the invalidity of the Eulsa Treaty. Is there any source that shows that the emissaries also tried to complain about the issue of Liancourt Rocks at Hague? -- Kamuichikap ( talk) 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that why the title of this article became 'Liancourt Rocks' is not because it was the first name given, but because the naming dispute which was not desirable. The description about the name can induce misinterpretation while both side argue that the island was known far before 1849. Isn't it desirable to add short mention of the naming dispute and the poll which happended ? Jtm71 ( talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I really mind editing this article, however, the recent editions by User:Lexico makes me worry for not only his introducing incorrect information (now deleted Hague Secret Emissary Affair) but also his editing habit. I don't know what background you have since you appear to be a new editor. I think you should read the rules in the green box on the talk page. You also seem to ignore the common guideline of WP:Quote and WP:V. You must not repeat the same contents in the quote secession in the tree languages : English, Korean, Japanese since here is "English Wikipedia". If there is no English source, foreign language sources are accepted as inline citations, however the site ( http://www.mofa.go.jp/ ) provides English document, so your repeating the same content not only is redundant but also looks like promoting the site and content.
Besides, you should not use "unreliable sites". The current inline ref 17, 18 do seem to be as such. Moreover, you have to discuss things before you insert "large chunk of information" to the article. -- Caspian blue ( talk)
I do not know why the reference was requested. While the relation of the island and the name was well known, I think the user needed more than that. Anyone but a historian can misjudge(or mislead) the historical fact, moreover, the event happened 160 years ago. Jtm71 ( talk) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to see when Japan said terra nullius.-- Opp2 ( talk) 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
To Jtm71
The meaning of terra nullius is not "no man land" but is "a territory not belong to any particular country(BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY)." Terra nullius is not "無人島" but is "無主地" in Japanese.--
Opp2 (
talk) 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
To Caspian blue
Prof. Park is not interpreting the claim of Japan as the incorporation of terra nullius. Sources of Japanese claim that he is using is as follows.
I confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the diplomatic document on July 13, 1962. I also confirmed that Japan did not say terra nullius in the Japanese diplomatic document to Korea on July 13,1953 and so on. When did Japan say "terra nullius"? I cannot verify which is correct, because Sean Fern's thesis never mention about his sources of Japanese claim which must say as a terra nullius.(his reference is describe only as "molvo") -- Opp2 ( talk) 11:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/japan-error-Kor16.jpg
" 明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 別紙內務大臣請議無人島所屬ニ關スル件ヲ審議スルニ、右ハ北緯三十七度九分三十秒東經百三十一度五十五分隱岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五浬ニ在ル無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、一昨三十六年本邦人中井養三郞ナル者ニ於テ漁舍ヲ構ヘ、人夫ヲ移シ獵具ヲ備ヘテ海驢獵ニ着手シ今回領土編入竝二貸下ヲ出願セシ所、此際所屬及島名ヲ確定スルノ必要アルヲ以テ、該島ヲ竹島ト名ケ自今島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲サントスト謂フニ在リ、依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ、之ヲ本邦所屬トシ島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲シ差支無之儀ト思考ス依テ請議ノ通閣議決定相成可然ト認ム"
"他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" (...It seems that this island was not occupied by any countries...)
I was so tempted to revert your edit, however other already did. Because your revert constitutes original research and factual error as you altering the description on attached Korean sources like Dokdomuseum. [6] You must provide your own source for the claim that Japan "reaffirm" their sovereignty. There is no such description on the source, rather the site says like the below.
Japan’s Meiji Government affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory. This is a reliable site affiliated with Government of South Korea, so that you inserted your own interpretation or thought without source. According to the source, "Japan affirmed that Dokdo was Korean territory", not "Japan affirmed that the islands was Japanese territory. Please don't falsify information. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/japan-error-Kor16.jpg
" 明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 別紙內務大臣請議無人島所屬ニ關スル件ヲ審議スルニ、右ハ北緯三十七度九分三十秒東經百三十一度五十五分隱岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五浬ニ在ル無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、一昨三十六年本邦人中井養三郞ナル者ニ於テ漁舍ヲ構ヘ、人夫ヲ移シ獵具ヲ備ヘテ海驢獵ニ着手シ今回領土編入竝二貸下ヲ出願セシ所、此際所屬及島名ヲ確定スルノ必要アルヲ以テ、該島ヲ竹島ト名ケ自今島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲サントスト謂フニ在リ、依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ、之ヲ本邦所屬トシ島根縣所屬隱岐島司ノ所管ト爲シ差支無之儀ト思考ス依テ請議ノ通閣議決定相成可然ト認ム"
"他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク" (...It seems that this island was not occupied by any countries...)
Thank you for your ORIGINAL RESERCH. But I think that you cannot understand Japanese basic term.
The following are the first statement, claim and interpretation by Japanese government about incorporation in 1905.
She never said "terra nullius". Then Prof.Park judged that Japanese govermental claim is as a coexisting theory. Thank you.-- Opp2 ( talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it in is not Japan but Korea that interpreted the claim of Japan first, as "terra nullius occupation" on the Diplomatic letter from Korea to Japan in February 10, 1954. Then "terra nullius theory" is not Japanese claim by Japanese government but Japanese claim created or interpreted by Korean government. Therefore, any thesis cannot present the source that Japan said "terra nullius".-- Opp2 ( talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard out of all the funnymen in wikipedia, your post is quoteworthy. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to cite biased websites. Both the South Korean and Japanese government sites contradict each other, how the hell are you supposed to write an article that makes sense if you use both? Good friend100 ( talk) 01:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Goodfriend says that "I dont think MOFA or any Korean government sites can be used in this article." North East Asian Hishory Funda[y]ion who is the owner of the Cyber Dokdo History Hall [8] was established by President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea. And, the South Korea government is investing. However Cyber Dokdo History Hall is cited now. Is Cyber Dokdo History Hall appropriate as a source?
Cyber Dokdo Hiostory Hall is an advertising site of the Korea government by the Korea government for the Korea government. -- Opp2 ( talk) 08:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The chaotic state displayed in the two preceding sections ("terra nullius" and "Opp2: Original research and factual error?") is the natural result of several factors including (1) Deemphasised representation of historical documents declaring respective sovereignties (2) Ignorance of the literal contents of said documents partly due to the under-representation (3) Misreading of academic articles, and original research based on such misperception
As is the case in many popular discussions and debates, source documents are treated poorly, resulting in odd POV's that do not adequately reflect reality either historical or current. Hence I propose a uniform style of presenting each POV, wherever appropriate, as follows.
A. Primary Official Source: what each legally binding historical document says specifying the official governmental view at that time
B. Government's Current Claim if differing from above: what each government says now specifying in which public announcement or diplomatic document
C. Popular View if differing from either of above: what a non-governmental body such as the acedemia, NGO's, or a private author has published that has had a significant impact on public perception
Regarding the case of Liancourt Rocks being a terra nullius for instance, the format could be realised as follows:
(A-1) Japan's 1905 Cabinet decision of Jan 28 states: "There is no evidence to recognise that this unihabited island was ever occupied by a foreign country... recognising occupation has occurred in terms of international law as evidenced through relevant records that a person by the name of Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) has relocated to said island in 1903 (Meiji 36) and have since practiced fishing there..."
"明治三十八年一月二十八日閣議決定 ... 無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク、... 依テ審査スルニ明治三十六年以來中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住シ漁業ニ從事セルコトハ關係書類ニ依リ明ナル所ナルハ國際法上占領ノ事實アルモノト認メ." (from Danceneveril's transcription)
source: Japanese Cabinet document "隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス", pp. 1-3 (on images 1 and 2) in '公文類聚' Vol. 29, 1905(明治三十八年) book 1 ( http://www.jacar.go.jp with search key 隠岐島ヲ距ル西北八十五哩ニ在ル無人島ヲ竹島ト名ヶ島根県所属隠岐島司ノ所管ト為ス)
(A-2) The Japanese government statement on Feb 10, 1954, makes reference to the 1905 Feb 28 Cabinet decision, which sought legitimacy under international law that occupation of a previously unclaimed territory had occurred by 1905. While the 1954 diplomatic document only emphasises that "the intention of the State to acquire terriroy" was "confirmed" and "a public anouncement ... was made" which had "satisfied the requirement under international law", it does not explicitly state how legitimacy was obtained in the first place but only that it had been "confirmed". In the absence of a revision on a previous claim made in 1905, i.e. legitimacy based on prior occupation of a terra nullius, some scholars interpret this document as a continuation of the claim as follows.
"Japan in announcing prior occupation of territory ... the measure has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law."
source: MOFA of Korea, Tokdo kwan'gye charyojip (Collection of Data on Tokdo) (I) Wangbok oegyio munso (Diplomatic Correspondence Exchanged); Chipmu charyo (Reference Material for Staff), (Seoul: MFA, 1997), p. 55 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, pp. 365-366
The Japanese government switched from its previous claim of "Prior occupation of a terra nullius" to a claim of "inherent territory" not later that 1962. MOFA of Japan stated in a memoramdum of Jul 3, 1962, "The Japanese government has made clear the postition of its claim that Takeshima is Japan's inherent territory from olden times and is now reconfirming repeatedly that position."
source: MFA, op. cit., supra n. 5, pp. 234, 236, 250 via Kim, Myung-Ki, A Study of Legal Aspects of Japan's Claim to Tokdo, Korea Observer, Autumn 1997, p. 361
left blank in the absence of an alternate claim that is neither "Prior occupation" or "Inherent territory"
--- end of sample ---
Please share your opinions on this matter as the non-analytic nature of certain parts of the two previous talk sections are draining of our resources and collective efforts which really ought to be directed elsewhere. The sample paragraph offered here is a sample only which ought to be further worked on for brevity and conformity to wiki syntax and style.
Lex (
talk) 08:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Special thanks!! I have this original image.
I will present the original. I think that the truth is clarified. By the way, a lot of mistakes falsifications are found in the Kim Myung-Ki's thesis.--
Opp2 (
talk) 09:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
basic terms and meanings
For instance, after WW2, Japan was occupied("占領") by Allied Power. However, there is no scholar who assumes that the Allied Power occupied terra nullius. It is necessary to prove that Japan used word "無主地(terra nullius) or "先占(prior occupation)" for terra nullius theory. Then Kim Myung-Ki says that Japan stated as follows. The Japanese government stated on ""Feb 10, 1954"", "Japan['s] announcing [of] prior occupation of territory ... has satisfied the requsite conditions under international law." However, Japan didn't say "prior occupation." [9] [10] This is a reason why the prof. Park did not assume the insistence of Japanese Government to be terra nullius and contradiction. -- Opp2 ( talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex ( talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) edits completed at Lex ( talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Originally, Japanese note in Feb 10, 1954 is English. Here [11] is all negotiation record between Japan and Korea.
First of all, you should withdraw impolite words against me after you read. Next, I demand to verify a present article again. The sea lion hunting is not described at all. It is an insistence of Korea that wants to emphasize the invasion (Though it is admitted even military activities on International Law). And please answer my above questions above. -- Opp2 ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[Note for Opp2: "No prior occupation by foreign country" LOGICAL AND "positive occupation offically recognised" === "Prior occupation" This is not original research as you claim; it is a result of applying 1-step deductive logic that falls outside the area of Original Research.]
??? Is this a evidence of terra nullius? The meaning of "無人島" is not "無主地(terra nullius)" but is a uninhabited island.-- Opp2 ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Although you have not apologised for defaming Prof. Kim for an inaccurate reading on your part, I will, for your odd reading of text is less due to a lack of intelligence or lack of education, but more due to your political agenda that does not include historical accuracy but more bent on revisionism for the needs of the present. Hence I retract my claim that you need to return to junior high school. Yet please conduct yourself in a way that is more civil and intelligible, which will surely improve the quality of wiki experience for every one of us. I have revised clause (A-2) to accommodate your objection which has helped me to improve the sample article section. Although it was inconceivable that one could retract one's previous claim etched in stone in an unambiguous, legally binding document, I must accept that some will actually do this in reality, and that on a national level. I have experienced a genuine expansion of my horizon by this unique discussion with you. If I might ask, is your view shared by many other Takeshima activists if I may presume you to be one? Whatever the case, I must thank you for sharing the full set of diplomatic documents「竹島/独島問題」に関する日韓両国往復外交文書(1952〜76) by Prof. Fjuhara Yuji 福原裕二. Unfortunately it is locked rendering it unprintable; do you have access to a printable one as well? I would appreciate it if you could share it with us if it is not a great problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Prof. Kim's thesis is here.
[12] Prof. Daijyudo pointed out that quotations of Kim's thesis are inaccurate and improper.
<ex>
Prof.Kim insisted that there was a notification obligation for prior occupation. And, he wrote that the William E. Hall supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.
The notification obligation concerning only the Africa coast was provided by “The Act of Berlin”. The original of the Hall is here.
[13]
[14] Prof.Kim ommited the word of "Nevertheless". And, he disregarded the footnote. Then he interpreted the description of the Hall as an opposite meaning. Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is his thesis a credible source?--
Opp2 (
talk) 11:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
<ex2>
Prof.Kim wrote that the M.F.Lindley supported the notification obligation. He is writing as follows.
Prof.Kim quoted "CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION" However, there is a chapter of "CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION" in Lindley's book.
[15]
[16] Lindley was described clearly as "Notification not legally necessary". Also excluding this, a lot of the mistake falsification of quotations is found in his thesis. Is Prof.Kim a scholar?--
Opp2 (
talk) 12:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And, he mistekes that Japan stated as a prior occupation. --
Opp2 (
talk) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The condition of this island [17] correspond to "無人島ハ他國ニ於テ之ヲ占領シタリト認ムヘキ形迹ナク(absence of any foreign occupation)." Because there are no national flag, no person, no facility and no signs which shows the country. In this island, there is no artificial one at all.
This is a part of the judicial precedent of Palmas. M. Huber said that two occupations are necessary.
I am looking forward to your answer.-- Opp2 ( talk) 03:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex (
talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Lex (
talk) 04:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Q1-3 is very important for this section, because it shows the recognition or definition of your "占領". I understood that you cannot understand the meaning of "占領". The meaning of "占領" is physical and effective occupation by miritaly force or administrative agency on the island. Therefore, 中井養三郞ナル者該島ニ移住(Nakai migrated to Takeshima) was judged as "占領". This island [18] is not terra nullisu(Japanese island) but is "無占領". Then Japan can "占領(physical and effective occupation)" this island tomorow by military forces but the Japanese "占領" action doesnot mean the island is tarra nullius. The logic of your original research has collapsed. -- Opp2 ( talk) 02:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the existence of a legally binding international treaty between Korea and Japan that affects the status of Liancourt Rocks at the time of the Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905: the Japan-Korea Protocol of 1904 which stipulates as follows
"Article 3: The Imperial Government of Japan definitely guarantees the independence and territorial integrity of the Korean Empire." (emphasis added by contributor)
The Japanese Cabinet decision to "incorporate Liancourt Rocks" is in direct conflict with Article 3 of this protocol, and hence is null and void. This conclusion receives support by at least two scholars of international law and Japanese history: Francis Rey of France and Yamabe Gentaro of Japan. (links and citations pending) Lex ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Observing the non-standard, and obviously revisionist, reading of the Jan 28, 1904, decision of the Japanese Cabinet as amply shown by Opp2's testimony, a seperate subsection independent of the Shimane notice is called for. It is close to impossible to read the Cabinet decision of Jan 28 except as "incorporation of a terra nullius", and more than a handful of Japanese scholars also concur to this standard reading, Yamabe Gentaro 山邊健太郞, Kajimura Hideki 梶村秀樹, Naito Seichu 內藤正中, and Hori Kazuo 堀和生. Yet as the Japanese government found it difficult to refute the overwhelming historical evidence from both Korea and Japan showing otherwise, and on the other hand found it rather easier to show recent evidence of "effective control" since the Cabinet decision, this seems to be on the forefront of the Japanese claim to Liancourt Rocks. This is definitely not neutral POV, as other evidence is being suppressed. Hence the need to return to the original text that lies at the heart of the debate. Lex ( talk) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss anything with someone who reads into everything. You really need to read historical text as is, not by infusing your derivative wishes into it. That does not even amount to interpretation, but becomes pure distortion. If you want a bibliography, such I shall provide. Please dig up some of the sample articles to the effect that everyone can share their full contents, as is only fitting for a wiki editorial team. Nevertheless, I must remind you there is little to interpret. A straightforward reading of the documents bearing on the 1905 Cabinet Decision of Jan 28, 1905, is quite illuminating in itself. Of course, scholarly analysis is always helpful to guide our reasons to subtle nooks and crannies. Yet one must abstain from indulging in subtle delicacies only as it is said, "The Master should always walk the straight path." 君子大路行
Lex ( talk) 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
About 1904 Japan-Korea treaty part
Please present souces before your edit.--
Opp2 (
talk) 11:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Helllo, Sennen goroshi, Your revised setence sounds fine with the passive construction; the verb comprise is a rather versatilve word in the transitive sense of the verb, which allows both voices, the active and the passive. Allow me to convey some natural constructions from the Random House Uabridged below.
1. "The United States of America comprises 50 states." : in the sense of "to include", "to consist of"; transitive verb; active voice; usage since 15th century
2. "Fifty states comprise the United States of America." : in the sense of "to form or constitute"; transitive verb; active voice; since late 18th century
3. "The United States of America is comprised of 50 states" : in the sense of"to consist of, be composed of"; transitive verb; passive voice; since late 19th century
Hence it appears either contruction is acceptable with preference more depending on personal style and taste rather than any prescriptive ruling. A discussion on the topic can be found at URL= http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=47429&page=3
Nevertheless, I am a bit troubled by the treatment of the proper noun Liancourt Rocks as a grammatical plural when what is referred to is one grammatical entity with a singular grammatical number as can be seen in similar examples;
"The United States has become a superpower since it prevailed over the Axis Powers; English has firmly established itself as a world language replacing French as a language of international relations."
"The Philippines is where I was born."
"The Himalayas is the mountain range of which Mt. Everest has some of the highest peaks."
Hence grammar dictates "Liancourt Rocks comprises" or "Liancourt Rocks is comprised of". Lex ( talk) 02:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Some corrections and reverts occurred as a result of a brief grammatical discussion in my talk page. Contibuting comments from Future Perfect at Sunrise were reflected as individual reverts in the article text. Lex ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand that sometime after WWII, South Korea took physical control of the Liancourt Rocks. When did this happen, and how? I'm amazed that there's no mention of it in the article. Does anyone know the answer? I can't even find an answer on Google. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Krtek2125 ( talk · contribs) and Clownface ( talk · contribs), please remember that this article is still under a strict zero tolerance policy against edit warring. All reverts except those of obvious vandalism or extremely blatant tendentiousness must be discussed in advance, with ample time allowed for discussion before the revert. I could have blocked you both at this point. Just a reminder instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I put back the link to the external message board before seeing the warning. My apolgies. The link I have added has been added to North Gyoengsan's Cyber-Dokdo page. This website reflects the position of the Korean government as is added as an external link. Tell Krtek to stop deleting it without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the external link above and it was removed, twice without reason by KRTEK. Why? The website is linked to Korea's Cyber Dokdo Homepage and thus representative of the Korean governments position on the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see [19]. This appears on the face of it to breach the terms of engagement as this is an undiscussed removal of a disputed link. Spartaz Humbug! 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 the site is linked to the Korean government's Cyber Dokdo Page. Additionally dokdo-takeshima.com is already cited for part of wiki's article. See citation #47 below. Please don't be disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp as I've mentioned, I don't know why you are upset, dokdo-takeshima.com has been externally linked by #47 for a long time.
The link has just been moved to the top. The Shimane Prefecture website obviously does not endorse the views of all the websites linked on her page some of them are Korean. Dokdo-Takeshima.com is endorsed by Gyeongsan Province. The Shimane Prefecture page you linked is just a link database and the other website you linked to is not even a website, it's just a blog. Again don't be so disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 you are being silly. If Professor Funasugi wants to put his reputation on the line by citing blogs that's his prerogative and own his personal opinion. Blogs are not websites
Blogs that post articles written by anonymous posters on a forum that doesn't even provide basic data such as WHOIS information have no more credibility than those who scrawl on a bathroom wall. Clownface ( talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2 the posters on the "blog" you describe are anonymous. Blogs are out, as the list mentions. Unless you consider whoever "Pacifist" and "Kaneganese" are as their real name which of course is not true. Of the three that people that post data on the blog you are referring to, two are phantom posters Opp2. This means at least 66% of the data is from anonymous ghost writers. Writing that has doubt about who authored it, is not acceptable. Read the rules.
As mentioned dokdo-takeshima.com represents the position of the Korean government hence it is linked to North Gyeongsan Provinces website. Obviously if the provincial government considers the dokdo-takeshima.com of high enough standard to be affiliated with their website, they feel it has credibility.
You say the information on dokdo-takeshima.com is contentious. The whole subject of Dokdo Takeshima is "contentious".
Wikipedia has been citing dokdo-takeshima for months now and you haven't said a word. What's the sudden sense of urgency Opp2? Have you found a new bone of contention on wiki to harass posters about? Please stop being disruptive. Clownface ( talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2, you have to understand just you don't agree with some data doesn't make something "contentious" if this were the case I'd request every link from Japan's government be removed. We should "be careful" when we quote self-publlished material but you have to remember all data was at one point published by someone. Whether you like it or not, the website in question is used by the Korean provincial government as an expression of their stance on the Dokdo issue and thus is relevent and equally admissable as any published writing.
Please find a more positive way to contribute to wikipedia instead of trying to suppress and censor data you feel damages Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks. The link has been here for some time. Leave it alone. Clownface ( talk) 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've posted the external link again and it was ripped down. This has been discussed and consented upon. I'm going to put it up again. This site is linked and part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page. Please do not remove again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is dokdo-takeshima.com part of Gyeongsanbukdo's Cyber Dokdo Page? If so, why do we need this external link? We already have an external link to the top page of Cyber Dokdo. I believe that the author of dokdo-takeshima.com is an American high school teacher and not a detachment of Cyber Dokdo.-- Krtek2125 ( talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
dokdo-takeshima.com is linked to North Gyeonsan Province webpage so obviously the data is concurs with the Korean Government's side of the dispute. There is plenty of data and maps on the site that the Korean Provincial Government's English page does not have, so it could be helpful. From what I understand much of the data is gathered and translated on behalf of the Korean government.
As I've mentioned the page has already been linked and cited for some time and there hasn't been a problem. Clownface ( talk) 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this important to set up an independent part ? Then I have three questions.
Approve? Are you sure that is the right word, or are you just trying to be funny? Legitimacy, or Mandate if you will, derives from the will of the people to autonomous government. This modern tenet of origin of state authority could be something that some closet-case Tenno worshipers or the ultra right fascist nationionalist might find difficult to comprehend. The Korean Provisional Government in exile was founded as a result of the proclamation of independence, March 1, 1919, on the occasion of the late Emperor Gojong's funeral who was rumoured to have been poisoned by the Tenno's agent in Seoul. The ancient regime had died, and a new nation was born. Thus the Government in exile had all the legitimacy it needed, except the Japanese agents who usurped power, the people, and the territory; a blatant violation of the 1904 Protocol and the 1905 Agreement to name just two. Words can come cheap, so why are you here if you do not intend to keep the trust? Lex ( talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I relayed a simple historical event in a simple translation into English; interpretation in terms of international law is not my job here. I do not offer free legal advice. Please further your legal queries to the appropriate authorities in whom you entrust your judicial judgements. Lex ( talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Lexico's most recent edit seems to have inserted large passages of Wikipedia talk page discussion into a footnote in article space. Can I please ask you not to do that. Wikipedia discussion is not something that should be documented in article space; it is, in fact, the very paradigm of "original research". How we here "interpret" a given source should be of no concern; in fact, if a source is in need of any non-trivial "interpretation" at all and that interpretation is not provided by independent, reliable secondary sources, the primary source should not be used at all. In Lexico's additions, it is often difficult to judge how much of the material presented is in fact original research, since the text quite often makes interpretative statements about primary sources and then quotes only those primary sources, not a secondary source that interprets them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, Future Perfect at Sunrise, with all due respect, I provide the following which are considered acceptable in wikipedia and Not Original Research.
If you consider my summaries as overly long, I shall cut down in quantity. That foot note will be managed to fit encyclopedia standards, but that is a summary, which you do not see as one. Fine, I shall take care of it. On the other hand, I would appreciate it if you got to moderating such unruly behaviour as Opp2 has demonstrated e.g. inserting foot note material into the text proper, throwing the article section out of context, and thus rendering it illegible. Thank you. Lex ( talk) 14:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Opp2: If you want to keep the report in the article and not in the foot notes, start a new section. If you would rather keep the report in the 1900 section, move it to the foot notes, as it is blatantly misleading as well. Not stating the time of the report could be considered intentional.
Yet I must remind you that claim and report have ended in a disgrace to the debate. With all the studies and translation work as Mr Sugino boasts, he can't handle a simple compound sentence? I doubt it was an innocent mistake. Is it only me who suspects it was rather intentional?
You have also failed to provide relevant sources:
Feb 2, 2008, Mr 杉野洋明, Sugino Youmei, blog page on Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906
http://ameblo.jp/nidanosuke/entry-10059918345.html
Feb 22, Sanin chuou shimpo, local newspaper article reporting on Mr Sugino's claim http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=500527006
Apr 3, 2008, 유미림, Korea Maritime Institute, analysis of Hwangsoeng Shinmun article of Jul 13, 1906 http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000005/1256.pdf
Jun 30, 2008, Yoo, Mirim, Korea Maritime Institute, Critical Review of Japanese Seokdo Denial http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000007/23-01-06.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Dr Yu's article points out Sugino's obvious misreading of a coordinating conjunctional verb suffix '-오' in Korean (Hwangsoeng Shinmun, '郡廳은台霞洞에在하고該郡所管島 는竹島石島오東西가六十里오南北이四十里니合이二百餘里라고하얏다어라') dictates that the following predicate phrase have its own subject or topic word, which is left unstated in the 1906 article (Yu, pp. 5-6). The possibilities include Ulleung County as Sugino prefers, and Ulleung Is as Resident-General requested. Actually it is neither; the unstated topic word is Uldo Is as Ulleung Is had been renamed to Uldo Is on Oct 25, 1900 (Official Gazette, Oct 27, 1900). The Resident-General's office was either feigning ignorance of the 1900 Imperial Decree or blatantly ignoring it as all embassies and cosular offices of foreign states were served all editions of the Official Gazette published by the Korean Government in 1900. Sugino not only fails to note this irregularity in the ignorance demonstrated by the Resident General's office, but aggarates the misunderstanding by mistranslating it into a subordinating conjunctional suffix -で、 in Japanese (Sugino, '郡廳は台霞洞に置き、該郡所管島 はチュク島と石島で、東西が六十里で南北が四十里なので、合せて二百余里だという') to the effect of creating a conflict that does not exist in the original text in question. This fact alone effectively takes away the essence of Sugino's thesis.
So here are your choices; either remove the faux pas claim, or face the danger of being labeled a devious, partisan trouble maker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Lex ( talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Lex ( talk) 04:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Read what? You didn't provide anything to read up on except the mistranslation and an unidentified image. Please point to Mr Gerry Bever's web publication where he first made the date-stamped claim; this is only proper and expected as you know very well. Lex ( talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 1900 Decree and the 1905 Decision are on totally different levels; Korea never said 'incorporation' as all the savage lands and waters had long been conquered as far as they were concerned. Thus the decree was simply a reorganisation of administrative boundaries and hierarchies, whereas the 1905 Decision was a cheap copy of European domination over the New World, which lead to contradictions and an infinitely recurring falsification to cover up missing logic; it will never work as logic transcends perception and even the ravaging forces of time. One reporter who did a tour of Japan to investigate the New History Group about a decade ago observed the lack of morale, morality, and public leadership advised, "Relearn your Confucianism!" I say there is nothing to relearn, as it had never taken root in the first place. Philosophy is what is lacking, the power of pure reason that has a universal appeal to all mankind, the only way to ascend to a higher level of existence instead of mere subsistence that worms do very well. Lex ( talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of work has been invested not to miss any major document in this very, very confusing, uncoordinated, unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either. Hence the great difficulty in dealing with such complex jungle of claims and notices, and stretching interpretations. My point is, does anyone find this section extremely difficult to read? Does the sheer bulk of material, points of views, interests, and strategic assessments that constantly shift, realign, and eventually contradict themselves give you a head spin and an eye-sore? Someone familiar with the material, please put in some paragraphing so the form of presenting material does not bog down what could otherwise be a very intriguing period. How about 3~4 paragraphs along the axis of US' State Department policy towards Japan combined with the other variable of US Forces engaging with DPRK-PRC forces in Korea? In addition, the bombing incidents over Liancourt Rocks, of which 1948's and 1952's were most lethal, should also have a place in this article. What are the opinions of my fellow wikipedians on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexico ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC) <priority>
Please select the source based on common sense and international law.-- Opp2 ( talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're not helping the situation by making snide remarks toward other editors. Also, I'm not sure if you were trying to sound neutral, but if you were, this comment gave you away: "unprincipled period due to unilateral swaying of US policy towards Japan, and none of it is to be missed or distorted either." Honestly, things like this are why this article has become a lost cause. People can't get off their nationalist high horses to make a neutral, informative article. Worldruler20 ( talk) 03:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
On topic, any positive suggestions on improving the clarity of the section regardless of POV? All this finger pointing is beginning to turn distasteful, as is an uninformed remark. An improved format need not be biased; a discussion of one need not be either. Whither, fellow wikipedians? Lex ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Japan claims that there is no evidence to identify the island "Sokdo" as Liancourt Rocks, [28] [29] and that there is no record that proves the effective occupation by Korea before Japanese Cabinet decision of Jan 28, 1905. [30]
I concur with your judgement that Opp2's claim in the article text in question and Prof Park, Ki Kap's thesis (s)he quotes as source is in error, in a classical case of a Non Sequitur. The following is the full paragraph from which Opp2 claims to find support:
Therefore I endorse Mansonfamily's accurate perception and decisive action of removing a logically false claim disguised as objective encylcopedia material. Lex ( talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinhoo, although I could understand you might feel strongly about in what order the two countries appear, it is inappropriate to revise how the Japanese call it in their country; that is not scientific. While Koreans have every right to call it 한일의정서, Han'il uijongso, and 韓日議定書, so do the Japanese in saying 日韓議定書, and Nikkan Giteisho. The reason why I put both forms in parenthetical notes was to give balance by showing both forms preferred by respective countrymen, countrywomen, and countrychildren; or should I have said, countrywomen, countrymen, and countrychildren? Chill it, please. Lex ( talk) 10:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinoo, renaming an English name for the same geogrphical landscape will solve nothing, help little. Although Korean names for the sea might have had initial favor in early travelogues and maps, the Japanese designation has gained popularity over time due to its greater impact on world history, or at least in the minds of English speakers since the opening of Japanese ports to Commodore Perry. Korea had lagged behind in its modernisation efforts, which was admirably planned, but eventually failed. If the failure in Korea's attempt is disappointing, renaming Sea of Japan to Sea of Korea or the Eastern Sea should serve little purpose. It should rather serve better purpose as a reminder to modern Koreans to never to lose sight to current tasks as the elite of the late Joson and Korean Empire have demonstrated, not to engage in backward naming wars. Please contrubte in a positive manner; there's a lot of work to do, and what you have done is intellectually lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. Why not visit the local libraries and try to read some serious articles to see if you can find some relevant material that might help everyone understand the issue better? Lex ( talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"On that date, a party of 44 officials from Shimane Prefecture visited Ulleungdo. The Japanese officials, including Kanda Yoshitaro, traveled to Ulleungdo by way of Dokdo, and informed Sim Heung-taek, then Magistrate of Ulleungdo, that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan."
I think dokdo should be changed to the neutral term of Liancourt Rocks here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.4.45 ( talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)