Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

THE EDIT HISTORY OF THIS ARCHIVE IS IN Talk:Dokdo/Archive 9 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Japan has always renamed each place that they conquered... But before they conquered, they still used the same name...(Meaning Tokdo was Tokdo in Japan before their Imperial Era) Also, Tokdo(Takeishima) belongs to Corea. So I am really confused why the Japanese does this... I wonder if the Japanese would likke it if the world calls Tsushima "Daemado"(Corean for Tsushima)... So it will really be bias if Tokdo is to be called Takeishima... I strongly believe that Japan has no right to rename Tokdo, Takeishima since the Koreans controlled the isles since the BC ages. What right does Japan have to rename a property of Korea that has belonged to them over many millenias. Comparing 5000 year of controll to a brief 30 year control is absurd... Sincerely Daniel McBeth

--Stephane mot 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A side note on the names "Tsushima" and "Daemado"--if you look at Tsushima on a map, you'll see that it appears as two islands right adjacent to one another (i.e., facing). The characters for either name are 対馬島 which is something like facing/opposite horse island(s). Maybe, if you use your imagination, then maybe one looks a little like a horse's head? Anyway, two islands in ǒmodern Korean would be tusǒm 두섬, but in middle Korean tushiom 두셤. Shiom and shima are related words--a borrowing. There is no tu sound in modern Japanese, so it would be represented by the syllable tsu. So, tushiom 두셤 --> つしま/ daemado/대마도/対馬島. Doc Rock 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media.

Understanding Wikipedia naming policy

See Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Understanding Wikipedia naming policy for talk on this subject before this time stamp: 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions are subservient to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which is "non-negotiable". As the names Dokdo and Takesima are clearly viewed by a lot of editors to this page as not being neutral, a suitable page name which meets the neutral point of view criteria is Liancourt Rocks. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The voice of common sense. Thank-you Philip. My suggestion was in line with Wikipedia naming policy (most common name amongst English speakers) was taking Dokdo/Takeshima. But arguably Liancourt Rocks is an equally common alternative if we exclude uses specifically aimed at promoting a POV, so is a valid and good alternative. Macgruder 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just your ignorance that you claim that my google search is deceiving. When the Korean name of the island is translated into english, it is either Dokdo OR Tok-do, Tok-islet, etc. They don't mix Dokdo and Tok-... in the same text. Is it clear? Besides, Tok alone has no meaning in contrast to Takeshima in Japanese. With Tok alone it cannot mean anything else than Tok-do in Korean. It may sound strange, but it is true. When you have people around who can speak or read Korean, ask them.

Opposition:[Dokdo] (獨島)독도 -"Dok" means lonesome. I'm Korean. I am offended. Please avoid incorrect assumptions.

It looks like you distrust whatever I say and are so prone to disqualify me from this discussion. I don't know where this impatience comes from. English speaking world is wide. Please don't assume that Dokdo has been always used with Takeshima. It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government. Please read what I wrote again.

By the way, as you said, Liancourt Rocks cannot be used. It is simply not as frequently or commonly used as Dokdo or Takeshima. The same argument is repeating. For the same argument as above, the article has been once named as Liancourt Rocks for a while. But it should not. Should we keep revolving around this endlessly? Ginnre 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

Stop using biased comments to make your points "It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government".

Your Google analysis was totally flawed. You took tok-do / dokdo and ADDED results - this means some pages get counted twice

"They don't mix Dokdo and Tok-... in the same text" Really???

tokdo AND dokto -----> 70,000 pages.

Learn how to use Google correctly. Here again. I did the correct Google count using tok-do OR dokdo etc. This automatically count any page with ANY of the names.

First learn how to use Google (go to the advanced and use the OR section) . This is the search you are looking for:

korea japan islands tok-do OR tok-ddo OR tok-island OR dokdo OR dok-do 104,000

VS

Takeshima korea japan islands about 70,000

These are fairly close, and as the issue is not just decided by a Google search the result is inconclusive.

Anyway, "When the Korean name of the island is translated into english, it is either Dokdo OR Tok-do, Tok-islet, etc." doesn't matter. The etymology of the word is irrelevant. It's what English speakers do use that counts. T and D are totally different to English speakers. But anyway, even when I count both as above the results are similar.

Stop using comments like 'ignorance' etc. All I see is an inability to use Google, misunderstanding of Wikipedia naming policy, anti-Japanese rhetoric and POV arguments.

It's nothing to do with 'impatience' as you say. You haven't yet given a shred of evidence(just misunderstanding of Google) to suggest that Dokdo is significantly more common than Takeshima amongst English speakers (i.e. people whose first language is English or are bilingual) . You want to earn some respect and get listened to, then stick to facts, and stop arguing by emotion. Stuff like

"It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government" is totally irrelevant to this discussion. All that counts is which one is used by English speakers - which is basically news sources.

Macgruder 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the archives. You can find more information about the discussion over Liancourt Rocks. Good friend100 05:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that discussion. Most of it was misunderstanding Wikipedia naming policy saying Liancourt Rocks was POV to Japanese. The ONLY thing that counts is the usage by English speakers, and this is inconclusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please calm down and be polite enough to be able to discuss? Your way of writing can amount to personal attack if you keep behaving like this. I don't know where you distrust against me came from. Please be aware that such attitude only undermines your credibility.

Please go to Senkaku Islands and try to change the title to either Senkaku/Diaoyutai or Pinnacle as hard as you do here. Every single argument of yours here can be equally applied to that case. Until then I can't believe your sincerity about what you're doing here. And I don't want to waste my time answering your ever repeating and unchanging comments, no matter what I say. Ginnre 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not only the usage in English that counts, other things come into play as well for example NPOV. Otherwise there is a danger that what has been called the Big Lie (say it loud enough often enough and people will believe it) could be construed as the name to use. With subject which have a low coverage in English, this is something that the use of Internet and search engines to determine common usage are particularly prone too. That is not to say that the name of the islets are subject to the big lie, just that there are an awful lot of pages generated by people with a political partisan axe to grind which distort what would be a very low count without the political interest.

For example a Google search for the word Rockall "returns about 511,000 English pages for Rockall" a Google search on Dokdo "about 128,000 English pages for Dokdo". Neither of these are very big internet samples when one considers that Lundy has about "3,210,000 English pages for Lundy" (Yes I know there are other meanings for the words that this simple search does not account for but I think it makes the point). --Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes google search can have various meanings, and that's what I first pointed out when Macgruder showed google results. Still, Liancourt Rocks cannot be so much the title as Pinnacle island isn't the title for Senkaku Islands. Ginnre 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. Please search and check Google News by using words "Dokko" or "Liancourt Rocks"

The result is apparent.　--Lulusuke 14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre are you really suggesting that if one page is in your opinion incorrectly named, that another should also be named incorrectly to balance out the first mistake (It reminds me of the advertising campaign for a credit card currently showing in the UK with the catch phrase "the clever dumb balance is restored" (by The Perlorian Brothers Agency?). Personally I think that that the merits of each case should be decided individually and they should not be linked in any way.--Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say any page is incorrectly named. You mean Senkaku is incorrectly named? I don't think so. Would you try to change the name there to Pinnacle first? If you will not, why is it like that? You don't care about Senkaku islands but do care much about these islands? Have you ever thought about why it is like that? The only difference between them is, I tell you, Senkaku islands are Japan-controlled, whereas Dokdo is not. Other than that, there is no difference in principle as far as I know. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Should that fact allow you name the articles in a different way? Too many articles in WP regarding Japan/Korea/China are described and named Japan-oriented. That shows simply Japanese voice is more heard in the western world and they are accustomed to viewing the things accordingly, but that does not necessarily reflect the state of the matter correctly or impartially. Ginnre 05:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre I think you should respect other arguments. They're probably just trying to drive/hammer/score some sense into that head of yours. Oyo321 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect other arguments and know too well of them. As I wrote above, I also know what is problem with their views and I just point out how distorted they can be and that they can just reflect Japanese POV, whether they intend so or not. Ginnre 05:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that this article be moved? The article was moved from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo for reasons that you can read in the archive. Moving it back will start a move war. Good friend100 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mr.Philip Baird Shearer. In the almost English news sources except the Japanese and the Korean news sources, this island is introduced to people as the Japanese name is "Takeshima" and the Korean name is "Dokdo". In the Wikipedia that have to write based on neutral points of view, we should be refer to article as "Liancourt rocks" which is neither of a Japanese name and a Korean name. Because, the controversy over this island has happened between Japan and Korea.--Watermint 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. (or Ms.) Watermint. This is an English version of Wikipedia, thus I think "Liancourt rocks" is better. --Lulusuke 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that over and over again. There are THOUSANDS of words in english that are NOT english. Is the word "kimchi" english? Or is there an english word invented to describe "kimchi." Just because it is an English Wikipedia doesn't mean there HAS to be strictly english words only.

And we have already decided that Liancourt is an unfit name for Dokdo. We have already gone over that. Oyo321 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have already decided that Liancourt is an unfit name for Dokdo? Who are you? Why do you have the right to do that while a lot of people don't agree with you? Why is Liancourt an unfit name for Dokdo or Takeshima? Because you want people to remember this islets as Dokdo, don't you?--Shin19 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oyo is talking about the latest consensus that was reached on June 1, 2006 here. It was not Oyo who moved Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo without consulting others, Liancourt Rocks was moved to Dokdo because the majority of the users decided to move Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. If you feel that Dokdo should be moved to Liancourt Rocks, then propose a move with an explanation on the bottom of the talk page. —Mir l e n 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What the consensus it is! That consensus was taken for very short time and igonored a lot of people's opinions. Dokdo is clearly Korean name. Why do you violate NEUTRAL?--Shin19 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia page for Senkaku Islands can remain being "Senkaku Islands" on Wikipedia, then Dokdo can remain on a page named "Dokdo". Some have tried to explain to me the difference between the two but seriously, I see no difference. The Senkaku Island page acts as a precedent for the Dokdo page. If this page gets named by the so-called "English" name "Liancourt" rocks, then Senkaku, which is being disputed by the P.R. China and Japan (with Japan in authority) should also be renamed to "pinnacle rocks", again, the so-called "English" name. --dandan xD 3:12pm, 13th Oct. 2006 (KST)

The name issue (Search results )

Names of Media	Dokdo	Liancourt Rocks	Takeshima
Newyork Times (Since 1981)	0	1	16
CNN.COM	0	0	80
news.BBC.co.uk	25	12	25
*.EDU domain	501	276	16,300
*.GOV domain	13	1	20,600
*.UK domain	1,110	295	1,450

--Lulusuke 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being inconsistent. First you want "Liancourt Rocks", but in your data table, you highly support "Takeshima". Which one do you want? Good friend100 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia plolicy and guideline are very important, so they supersede all previous understandings in our talk.

Thus I said "I agree with Mr. (or Ms.) Watermint". That's all. Thank you.--Lulusuke 12:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Refine your search, mister. You didn't type "Tokdo", which returned 7 results in nytimes. "Tok-do" returned 1 more. Type "Tokto" to get 4 more results.

# Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Soviet Expels 2 Japanese as Spies; Tokyo Reacts by Ousting Russian

... attache, Nobuhiro Takeshima, and the army attache ... Odessa. Mr. Takeshima was told to leave. ...View free preview August 21, 1987 - By BILL KELLER, Special to the New York Times (NYT) - World - News - 910 words

Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase U.S. AND JAPANESE DISAGREE IN ACCOUNT OF SHIP DISASTER

... newspapers. Tsukasa Takeshima, 25 years old, ...View free preview April 12, 1981 - By HENRY SCOTT STOKES, Special to the New York Times (NYT) - World - News - 615 words

Children's Books: Bookshelf

... plants. Katie Takeshima, the middle child, ... February 13, 2005 - (NYT) - Books - Review - 1010 words

Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Japan Aims to Stiffen Antitrust Penalties

... chairman, Kazuhiko Takeshima, who is leading the ... Koizumi, Mr. Takeshima helped draft legislation to strengthen ... co-conspirators. Mr. Takeshima says current penalties do little ...View free preview June 30, 2004 - By TODD ZAUN (NYT) - Business - News - 1332 words

These 4 don't concern Dokdo. In the end, in nytimes. 12 1 12. (Wikimachine 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

As for CNN, type Tokdo and return 52 results. Type Tokto and return 2. (Wikimachine 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

As for BBC, type Tokdo and return 1. Tokto returns 1. Tok-do returns 1. (Wikimachine 00:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Names of Media	Dokdo	Liancourt Rocks	Takeshima
Newyork Times (Since 1981)	12	1	12
CNN.COM	54	0	80
news.BBC.co.uk	28	12	25
*.EDU domain	148	1	(644, see below)
*.GOV domain	27	0	(109, see below)
*.UK domain	298	0	(327, see below)
*.COM domain	1733	42	(582, see below)
*.NET domain	709	18	(522, see below)

First of all, you made a serious mistake. Visit the last page of google search to avoid similar pages. You'll get omitted results count instead of total count.

Second, Takeshima results are tweaked because half of the time, Takeshima is a Japanese name.

Here are the evidences for .gov.

[1] all 8 results were names.
[2] all 10 results were names.
[3] all 10 results were names.
[4] all 10 results were names.

(Wikimachine 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Here are the evidences for .edu.

[5] 4 were names.
[6] 6 were names.
[7] 5 were names.
[8] 8 were names.
[9] 9 were names.
[10] 6 were names.

(Wikimachine 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Here are the evidences for .uk.

[11] 4 were names.
[12] 6 were names.
[13] 6 were names.
[14] 3 were names.
[15] 5 were names.
[16] 7 were names.

(Wikimachine 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

In response to the testing, I tried "Dokdo, Tokto, Tokdo, Dokto, Tok Islet, Dok Islet, Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima" on Google search with the following results.

555 000, 117 000, 19 700, 217 000, 128 000, 12 400 for the various Korean names of Dokdo which in total amounts to 1 049 100
47 300 for the so-called English name of Dokdo, 'Liancourt Rocks'
652 000 for the Japanese name of the Korean Dokdo, 'Takeshima'

Unlike Japanese, Korean does not have a set romanisation method, therefore, there are a lot of different English variations to a Korean word. When I tested most of the romanisation I knew for Dokdo and added them altogether, the pages with Dokdo surpassed both Takeshima and 'Liancourt' rocks combined. Try it out for yourselves if you're unconvinced. Also, I do not recommend users testing this out on news articles because there are more articles about Japan than Korea, this is the reason as to why more people found the Japanese variant of Dokdo being used in some news portals. --DandanxD 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You should first learn how to calculate union of set A and set B, before writing about search results number. --Isorhiza 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I already know that. (Wikimachine 02:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

Look at my search results. News media show equal amount of Dokdo and Takeshima (slightly more Dokdo). (Wikimachine 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Also, look up Takeshima on Wikipedia, it is not just used to define Dokdo, therefore, it totally debunks any searchs for 'Takeshima' made on Google. --DandanxD 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1)"Word Counting from the media" does not identifies the name of these islets. 2)As long as if Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima," it is not a huge conflict at all. We are not the ones who decides the name of these islets. AND THE READERS WILL KNOW THAT. 3)Koreans currently occupies these islets. Doesn't it confuses readers if we simply call these islets "Takeshima" only? for examle, "How can Koreans occupy Japanese-Named Islets?" I think we need to stay consistent. 4)Changing "Dokdo" into other competing names will not solve any conflicts. We are not the Naming Solver. Many people seems to disagree with "Dokdo". However, I personally doubt that frequently changing names of this article, without solving the actual problem, will help the researchers to easily refer back to during their research. --Jamesshin92 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction change

To not apply hypocritic double standards in Wikipedia, I have changed the introduction to mirror that of Senkaku islands. It is simply ridiculous to state that the word "administer" is NPOV and should not be used in Dokdo article while it has been used for years in Senkaku islands article. Deiaemeth 05:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I don't understand why Senkaku islands is related. We should be argue a matter of Dokudo here. In this problem and the Senkaku problem are quite different about the current status, the background, and details, etc.etc.... It is not fair to compare two problems with a different situation. Moreover, if you have any insistences about Senkaku, you must write on the talkpage of Senkaku islands.--Watermint 09:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you Watermint. It does matter. Senkaku islands is an article in the English Wikipedia and all policies are relevent and apply. So what if they are different situations? It should be consisted. Also, believing that Takeshima is the best name to use is wrong. The move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" had good reasons, look in the archive. Don't rechange what others rewrite because that can start an edit war. Good friend100 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is senkaku lying between Taiwan and Okinawa.

From Chinese viewpoint , "Dokdo" has close relation to "Su Yan Jiao(English Name:Socotra Rock, Chinese name:苏岩礁 )" that is a reef located in the northern East China Sea. The Socotra Rock is nearer than Senkaku. But I don't assert and claim to add Socotra Rock into this article, since we must keep Wikipedia policy and guideline.

Thank you.--Lulusuke 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what being "consistent" means. If you want this article to be moved to "Liancourt Rocks" because its an English name and that its NPOV, then Senkaku Islands should be moved to "Socotra Rocks" which is an English name. If you want to be consistent, then move the Senkaku Island article. Good friend100 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

　Hi. I think "Senkaku Island shoud be moved to "Socotra Rocks" . It's natural --Lulusuke 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built upon individual ideas. That is your personal opinion. Good friend100 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, Socotra Rock does not refer to Senkaku Islands, though, it refers to Su yan rock a.k.a. Ieodo. So Senkaku Islands should probably not be moved to Socotra Rock. Rōnin 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As the above user has pointed out, Senkaku Islands is not Ieodo (Socotra Rocks). They are two totally different rocks/islands out in the East China Sea disputed between China-Japan and Korea-China respectively. --DandanxD 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Takeshima, Shimane

What are you doing? Moving an article requires discussion before moving it. I am reverting this. Good friend100 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we need an administrator to move the page back. -- Visviva 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to revert the move, but it simply said that there already was an article named "Dokdo". Good friend100 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the move as it was not discussed here first, and there was no consensus for the move. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, could you post a move tag onto this article? thanks. Good friend100 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? I'm not involved in this article to that extent, so if you want to discuss moving the article, you'll have to do it yourself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

=) Thanks for the advice but unfortunately I don't know how to post a move tag. I will refer to another admin for help. Good friend100 14:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, posting a move tag is rather easy... You just type {{move|subst}} where 'subst' is the name you'd like to move the page to. --Zonath^Yak 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Attack Against Controversial issues

This link from Ginnre's discussion page, [17], clearly shows Japanese mobilization against articles on Japan-Korea disputes and controversies. For example, not long ago Imjin War was changed to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Now this article. And who knows whether some other related issues are being overturned to JPOV?

the 2ch.net specifically lists all the Korean Wikipedian editors, the list of disputes occuring, etc. Don't lose your focus. (Wikimachine 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps the POV pushers are from nichanneru. Good friend100 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In their link [18], they ran the 12th series of analysing and discussing how to take steps against 'Korean manipulation' of english WP.

(See thread number 1153715761 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 12 ).

In the thread (2ch.net), edits from Nihonjoe, Reuben, Circeus, Zonath, Kuru, Gogo Dodo, Zetawoof, Appleby, Goodfriend100, Bigtop, Ginnre, TheFarix, Pilotguy, Pgk were classified as pro-Korean or written by Korean. Each thread ran up to 1000 replies and that was 12th of them. It was several months ago, so I don't know how many more series of those analysing and discussing have gone through so far. Ginnre 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, look who's the hypocrite. This proves our point that some hypersensitive articles concerning Korea and Japan might have Japanese bias. dandan xD 11:08, 25 November 2006 (AEST)

You are welcomed to discuss which part is biased here. (Though someone has removed pov tag)--Jjok 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirection

Takeshima redirects to Dokdo, which in turn redirects to Dokdo/Takeshima. If you go to Takeshima, you find a notice about this double redirection, and you have to click on a link to see the actual article. This redirection needs to be solved. (Stefan2 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

No it doesn't... Maybe it's already been fixed then. --DandanxD 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In the current situation section

Do we need the section below?

In 2005 a subway station in a Seoul suburb was the center of attention after posting art about the island by young school children depicting Japan in flames, the Japanese flag as toilet paper, etc. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4].

I mean, this only serves to make Koreans look irrational and anti-Japanese. Also, the pictures was just a sign of overall anti-Japanese feelings, and should not be in here. Any comments?

-- (General Tiger 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it. Anti-Japanese/Chinese attitudes are eternal in Korea. We can't do anything about that though... Oyo321 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I'm saying is that this part has nothing to do with Dokdo. Also, don't say such things; I'm pro-Japanese, for example. I've deleted that part, by the way. -- (General Tiger 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like the part, either. At that time, the referred sites looked pretty well known among some users of 2ch.net and some editors here insisted to mention about that. In the beginning it was very in detail and somewhat has gone too far, so I reduced the paragraph and just indicated the fact and the links. I agree with you deleting it, as long as those original editors are OK without that paragraph. Otherwise we could discuss whether it is relevant to keep that paragraph in this article or not. Ginnre 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't it a news story about artwork concerning the islands? It was not simply about anti-Japanese feelings. Komdori 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But how is it relevent? Plus, I agree, there will always be anti-Japanese senitments in Asia and there's nothing we can do about that except hoping that it will subdue as time goes (and, of course, when Japan shows genunine remorse). --DandanxD 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request page protection

It seems that the edit wars are starting again.

-- General Tiger 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the current version

we need to go back to the version right before the current one. There's a lot of Japanese POV-- General Tiger 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that, not for POV reasons, but because much of the last edit (before protection) smacks of original research, and is unsupported by references. --Zonath^Yak 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename vote

moved to Dokdo -> Liancourt Rocks Korean/Japanese NPOV --Seaopd 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the voting on hold, until after more discussions. If you are going to do a poll, you need to determine the conditions. Our previous consensus would require the poll to be 2 weeks long, and restricted to editors with over 100 edits. Please discuss.--Endroit 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of a move. The name is not a POV.--General Tiger

Absolutely no more vote. It's been already Liancourt Rocks once and came back to Dokdo. This consensus was obtained after very very long discussion. Read archive before propose a vote. Ginnre 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose vote, as my web search results above clearly support Dokdo. It complies with all Wikipedia NPOV standards and naming conventions. (Wikimachine 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Support a move to Liancourt Rocks; the title "Dokdo" is obviously POV; if it wasn't, why would the Korea Times 한국일보 be writing editorials calling the renaming a "victory" for Korea? Liancourt Rocks would respect NPOV and recognise the fact that the issue is an unresolved dispute. --Ce garcon 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, it is Japan who promotes the name Liancourt Rocks. It's been repeatedly mentioned here that Liancourt Rocks is NOT a neutral name. It is an obsolete name usually not used in news articles. It is not like Liancourt Rocks has been widely used but some Koreans recently put effort in WP to change the title. The editorial of the Korea times used the term 'victory' in this sense, meaning Dokdo just shows status-of-quo more accurately as Senkaku island does in that article. To the world, until recently, Japanese POV has been generally more easily accepted or considered more authoritative while the circumstances have not been fully revealed or Korean POV has been not well heard or to be more easily dismissed as minor opinions regarding Japan-Korea issues. It is a 'victory' in a sense that not justifiable Japanese influence regarding this issue could be appropriately dismissed, serving NPOV in WP better. Ginnre 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask the source of he Korean Times editorial? Also, it's only a "unresolved" dispute since several Japanese conservatives are still clamoring over this -- General Tiger

i'm not conservative, but support vote. however, not necessary so soon. Dokdo (or Takeshima) is obviously not English. Wikipdedia's article name doesn't change anything in the real world. Several conservatives? You should realize that Korea made an enemy of all wings in Japan by claiming naming and territorial issues so eagerly. You may be satisfied with the article's name, but the small victory only makes Koreans look foolish to the eyes of people from the other part of the world. I'm ashamed of being a Japanese that shares cultures partly with Koreans. --Isorhiza 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify "unresolved dispute": I meant the issue of who owns Dokdo, not the renaming thing. Sorry if I confused you.

Also, what do you mean by "Korea made an enemy of all wings in Japan by claiming naming and territorial issues so eagerly?" If this is the case, then Japan made an enemy of all koreans by letting some people whitewash the Japanese Imperial history. Also, "Koreans look foolish to the eyes of people from the other part of the world?" Just what do you mean by other parts of the world? Then I would have to say that Japan is in even bigger trouble for ignoring the atrocities of the past. And "I'm ashamed of being a Japanese that shares cultures partly with Koreans?" Then I have to be ashamed of being from the same bloodline as the imperialists who tortured all of east Asia. Now,

I'm saying this as a pro-Japanese Korean, I mean you no harm, but please watch what your saying. I understand your concerns, but the way you're saying things can make you a target. -- General Tiger

"Japan made an enemy of all koreans by letting some people whitewash the Japanese Imperial history" maybe so, but it is not my mistake. I agree that to beautify the past is bad attitude. But present action cannot be justified by the past. You don't have to be ashamed of having imperialist sibling in the past. Imperialism was quite normal way to go before WWII. Still, many countries own dependencies and some big names even suppressing them. I will not justify the past by this, but this is the real world. --Isorhiza 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just countering your original post by using your own words, Isorhiza. -- General Tiger

Good call, Isorhiza. (Wikimachine 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Victory is defined as a net gain in relation to the risk of losses in a conflict. (Wikimachine 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

See Senkaku islands. Also, the last time we had a vote we had a thread in 2ch calling to purify Wikipedia of "Korean disgrace" and influx of sock puppets ... Deiaemeth 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True, true. Isorhiza has just painted a BIG bullseye circle on his forehead. Wait...did you just say that Korea was first to make an enemy of Japan? While Japan was cordial and kind to Korea? Oyo321 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any proposal to move this page should be advertised on WP:RM and follow those procedures.
As it is less than six months since the last proposed move, and there is a tradition of waiting at least six months to propose a return move on WP:RM, I for one (and probably more people who monitor that page) would oppose such a move. So any proposed move advertised on WP:RM before December 1st is unlikely to reach a consensus and so will be counter productive for the proposer. If after six months such a move was proposed I would support it.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see how it is Isorhiza. Korea made itself an enemy of Japan? Its the other way around. And look whos talking "claiming territorial lands so eagerly". Who did that in the 20th century? Its simply a reclaiming of territorial land.

Of course you would be ashamed of having a culture so similiar to Korea. Ironically, thats where your ancestors' culture came from, which is Korea, which is undeniable. However, Japanese POV editors persist in removing information about Baekje in Japan related articles which is a shame to me, considering how immature it is to fail to admit the truth.

It seems you are angry that this article is not in the title to your satisfaction. If it was truly Japanese territory, it would have been named Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks long ago. Good friend100 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There can be no higher veracity behind Isorhiza's comments than Good friend100's. 50% of Japanese, as proved by a Japanese university (Tokyo?) share the same mitochondrial gene as Koreans. (Wikimachine 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with the move. Let's not be bias shall we? As I said a long time ago, I see no difference between Senkaku and Dokdo. If Dokdo gets moved to the so-called "neutral" name, 'Liancourt Rocks', I vote Senkaku to be moved to its "English/neutral" name. dandan xD 22:13, 18 November 2006 (KST)

I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THIS LONG AND LONG ARGUMENTS... AND I WROTE MY POINTS DOWN. Please if you are not going to read until the end, don't start reading it.

As long as if Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima," it is not a humungous conflict. We are not the ones who decides the name of these islets. AND THE READERS WILL KNOW THAT.

In my opinion, people in this talk page does not understand the true controversy. The two controversies people are confusing with are, "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" and "the argument itself." People are thinking way too off. The argument will not solve even when the name of the article changes back and forth thousand times.

1. "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" is more of Korean Japanese controversy. Which means that anybody outside of Korea, and Japan, really makes opinions not facts. Korea claims have the evidence. Japan also claims have the evidence. Do Americans have the evidence? Do Canadians have the evidence? Do Italians have the evidence? Do you have the evidence? This jumps into my next point. Word counting in the media has no connection here, because only one of the three candidates (Dokto, Takeshima, and Liancourt rorks) is right (or perhaps the "best"), and nobody knows that outside of Korea and Japan. Frequent use of word is not the right answer, that is the word people often used outside of Korea and Japan, it might be wrong, it might be right. Do you know? You can make opinions... not the true statements, since there would be millions of people opposing you. So nobody can officially SOLVE the problem, you can try, opposing millions of people arguing against you, threatening you, or sending you virus.

2. So why don't we jump into my next point? Why do we bother changing the article that will not solve anything? Did changes to the article "Liancourt Rocks" into "Dokdo" solve any problem? I'm not saying that "Dokdo is the right word," but why do we bother changing the article that will suprise thousands of people and erect the non-ending conflict again? In my opinion. We should calm ourselves down, and just pause this non-ending conflict, and try best as we can to stablize and stay consistent.

So therefore, I want "Dokdo" to stay in this article.

Thank you for reading...

--Jamesshin92 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And if this page does get redirected to "Liancourt Rocks", Senkaku Islands should also be redirected/moved it its 'netural' name. If that article does not get moved, it is obviously clear that Dokdo should stay as it is. --DandanxD 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt the renaming vote but...

I believe we need to go back to the version right before the current one. There's a lot of Japanese POV-- General Tiger 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you identify the JPOVs? I'll fix them systematically. (Wikimachine 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Dokdo&diff=prev&oldid=80609072

Yes, I'm advocating an edit under my name, but that was the form in which the article existed during when the article was closed before. The only major edit was concerning the thing in the "In the current situation section" above. -- General Tiger

You are right. This is original research, and straw man argument edits. They show bunch of Korean original historical texts & then disprove them with JPOV analytical essays. They bring a lot of bad arguments from KPOV & then disprove them. This must be fixed. (Wikimachine 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

So, do I go to ask for editing? -- General Tiger

how shameful

I am disheartened to see this crap that pro Takeshima editors slop onto this article. And I mean it. Good friend100 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from trolling. Pointing fingers at one side or the other doesn't solve anything. --Zonath^Yak 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be completely locked. Good friend100 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To what end? The vandalism has more or less ended since the page has been semi-protected. --Zonath^Yak 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with Good friend100's comment on how massloads of ignorant people have been changing the Dokdo page to make it compatible with their own 'theory', I also agree with Zonath that 'semi'-lock has proved itself to work and block out the people we do not want. Let's keep the restriction as it is and see for another few weeks. dandan xD 18:09 20 November 2006 AEST

Ok. Good friend100 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese government admits that Dokdo is Korean territory

http://korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20061120001&part=102 http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200611/200611200015.html http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20061120/610000000020061120061553E1.html

I haven't been able to find any other news for this, as the Japanese media hasn't said a squawk yet. But this might be a start, and I suppose that someone with the authority can update the article with those.

I'll try to find out more from less biased sources in the meantime.

Interesting, but they didn't say that Dokdo is Korean territory. They just recognized the authenticity of one document. The Japanese government doesn't appear to have concluded so far that the document really refers to Dokdo instead of some other island, remains binding today, or invalidates Japan's claims (for instance, the terra nullius claim from 1905 would not be inconsistent with the idea that in 1877 Dokdo was not part of Japan). --Reuben 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Finally some positive news! Hope Japanese media outlets comment on this latest development soon. - dandan xD 10:41pm 22 November 2006 (AEST)

Yes, but what will we do with this information? We can't just drop the information on Japanese claims in the article. Good friend100 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, or the pro-Japanese users will probably launch another edit war. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the findings. --DandanxD 10:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is original source[19][20][21]. The composition of this document is as follows.

1.Proposal of cadastral survey to Shimane Prefecture from Home office geography bureau. (October 5, 1876)

2.Confirmation of cadastral survey from Shimane Prefecture to Home Office Minister.This document is composed of a body, attached document, and an attached map. (October 16, 1876)

3.Confirmation from Home Office Vice Minister to the Minister of the Right. The original investigation result of Home office is appended. (March 17, 1877)

4.Takeshima and the other one island are unrelated to Japan. (The manufacturer is uncertain. March 29, 1877)

It can be presumed that the other one island is Takeshima/Dokdo when only a title of body and attached document by Shiomane are seen. (However, it contradicts the content of a body. ) There is a possibility that it is Takeshima/Dokdo or is jukdo when only an attached map and a body by Shimane are seen. However, it adjusts to a body assumption as jukdo. In addition, Home office thought that Matsushima is Ullengdo and Takeshima is Algonort until 1881. Therefore, there are three hypotheses.

The other one island=Matsushima(in attached document by shimane)=Takeshima/Dokdo[It thought the value of attached document by Shimane is high]

The other one island=Manoshima(in attached map by shimane)=jukdo[It thought the value of a body by Shimane is high]

The other one island=Matsushima(in attached document by shimane)=Ullengdo[It thought the value of geography recognition of Home office is high]

--Opp2 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of the Ahn Yong-bok incident part

This part is especially cruel.

1.Takeshima is about 160-ri (64km) from Oki but only about 40-ri (16km) from Korea; therefore, it can be considered Korean territory as it is nearer to that country.

"it can be considered Korean territory as it is nearer to that country" is a wrong translation. "it(Takeshima) also seems Ullengdo of Chosun" is correct. The shogunate and Chosun disputed Ullegdo and Takeshima are another island or the same island. "Oki but only about 40-ri" is a wrong translation too. The discription that corresponds to " but only" is not in the original. In addition, 1-ri of Japan is 4km. Original source is follows "道程ノ儀相尋候ヘハ伯耆ヨリハ百六十里程有之朝鮮ヘハ四十里程有之由ニ候然ハ朝鮮國ノ蔚陵島ニテモ可有之候哉"

2.Japanese are forbidden henceforth to make passage to Takeshima.

This doesn't have the objection.

3.The lord of Tsushima should communicate this to Korea.

It is uncertain which part translation it.

4.He should also send the Osakabe Daisuke (judge) of Tsushima to Korea officially to notify the Korean government of this decision and report the result of his mission to the Kanpaku.

It is uncertain which part translation it. First of all, there is no word "Kanpaku" in this document. A Kanpaku at that time is not the shogunate but court noble's official position. It is an impression operation to give the possibility to the lie testimony of Ahn Yong-bok.(Chosun answered japan that he is liar's foolish people, he is unrelated to the government, and Ahn's treaty is unrelated to the government.) The shogunate is not declaring Takeshima to be a Chosun territory in this document. In this document the reasons for the take a passage prohibition are follows.

1.The evidence doesn't exist though it is not possible to pass to Korea if the Japanese lived.(夫トモニ日本人居住仕候カ此方ヘ取候島ニ候ハハ今更遣シカタキ事ニ候ヘトモ左様ノ証據等モ無之候間)

2.It is also useless to come to a rupture the diplomatic relation for this island. (蚫取ニ参リ候迄ニテ無益島ニ候處此儀ムスホホレ年来ノ通交絶申候モ如何ニ候)

3.It is not possible to take military action for this island. (御威光或ハ武威ヲ以テ申勝ニイタシ候テモ筋モナキ事申募リ候儀ハ不入事ニ候)

4.Because belonging was not clarified, the take a passage decided to be prohibited.(竹島ノ儀元シカト不仕事ニ候例年不参候)

In addition it is necessary to describe the denial of the effect of Ahn's testimony clearly by a Chosun government. [22] --Opp2 09:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

When shogunate and Chosun negotiate about Ullengdo, Grounds of Chosun were records of seeing Ullengdo from the peninsula in the Don'guk yeoji seungnam[23]. South Korea is interpreting the same record now as Takeshima was seen from Ullengdo. Is the document of this official Chosun disregarded why? Is Wikipedia a propaganda site for South Korea?--Opp2 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The map shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ullungdo and Tokdo are shown in their correct positions in yellow.

This description is Korean POV. In the insistence of Japan, it is not dokdo/Takeshima but it is Usando. Chosun regularly inspected Ullengdo after Ahn incident. However, Takeshima/Dokdo is not included in the inspection. Usando indicates jukdo in the record and map of Chosun at that time[24][25]. Therefore, Usando that a Chosun government recognizes is jukdo, and Japanese Matsushima that the Chosun government inevitably recognizes becomes chukdo, too. Are the search record and the map of Usando by the Chosun government disregarded why?--Opp2 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that Ulleung-do and Dokdo were Korean possessions" is a Ahn's　testimony. This Shogunate's document is being confirmed by neither Japan nor Chosun. Therefore, the Tsushima clan confirmed the document to a Chosun government. The answer of the Chosun is "A Chosun government doesn't know the document, and be unrelated. He is the foolish people with the lie." In addition, when he was repatriated from Nagasaki, the shogunate sent the letter to a Chosun government with a formal messenger. The shogunate's letter is requested to prohibit the Chosun people's Takeshima making a passage. And, Takeshima(Ullengdo)'s owning right duel occurred with a Chosun government. If his testimony is correct, such a letter won't be sent. Therefore, the possibility of this is his lie is very high. Why is not the lack of the correspondence of such historical records described? Is his testimonies given to priority more than intergovernmental Public Record? Is it because of inconvenience to the insistence of South Korea? --Opp2 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The South Korean goverment has nothing to do with the Dokdo article. Also, it is unconfirmed that "In the insistence of Japan, it is not dokdo/Takeshima but it is Usando." This statement is also Japanese POV because it is what Japan believes. Also, the Shogunate confirmed in writing to the Chosun government. It doesn't make sense that it would be confirmed to nobody but one person. Good friend100 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an insistence of Japan though is natural. The problem is that there is only Korea POV. There is even no Korea Empire map in 1899[26]. An official demand to Chosun from shogunate and the answer of Chosun about Ahn is true. Therefore, I will change to the following compositions for NPOV.

1.Repatriation of Ahn and formal demands from the shogunate to Chosun.

2.Insistence of shogunate and Chosun about Ullengdo, prohibition of passage to Takeshima(Ullengdo) by shogunate

3.Ahn's testimony in Chosun

4.Formal answer of Chosun about Ahn and shogunate writing

5.Insistence of Korea

6.Insistence of Japan

The volume of the insistence of Japan and Korea is assumed to be equal.

Though I can prove the lie of Ahn's testimony, I will stop it because it become prolixity.(He met the person who stays in Tokyo at Shimene, a person who has already died is a feudal lord, and he encountered a Japanese fisherman who did not go out fishing. etc.) I am expecting you to cooperate in the edit because my English is poor.--Opp2 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the original source of this description?

The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and taken to the lord of Okinoshima.

The record of Chosun mentions that they have been threatened with the gun by Japanese fishermans at Ullengdo. --Opp2 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

amended bill part1(from the visit to Japan in 1963 to the Ullengdo dispute)
In a present description, the historical materials selection has been very biased. Most is Ahn's testimony and an indefinite(creation?) episode has been inserted. Therefore, the following were assumed to be a basic policy.
1.Both are described when there is a difference in the record of the two countries.
2.The creation is not added.
3.A worthless event is not described.
The amendment bill and the correction reason are as follows.

The spring of 1693 about 40 Korean fisherman clashed with the Japanese fishermen at Ulleung-do. Japanese took Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun from among Korean to the Oki. Ahn was inquested in Oki and Tottori clan. After Ahn return to Korea, he testified that I was then taken to Edo, the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleung-do as Chosun territory and was taken up the note by the Tsushima clan. However in the record of Japan, such events were not and even didn't go to Edo. Ahn was then held hostage in Tsushima and was extradited to Chosun with a chiaus of Tsushima clan. The chiaus requested the prohibition of Korean passage to Ulleung-do according to the Shogunate's order. As a result, Ulleung-do's attribution problem occurred between the two countries.

In a diplomatic negotiation about Ulleung-do, the Shogunate insisted peaceful effective control for 80 years. Chosun insisted that Ulleung-do was recorded in ancient don'guk yeoji seungnam which mentioned that Ulleung-do be seen from Korea peninsula. After all, the Shogunate prohibited the Japanese passage to Ulleung-do to avoid becoming a serious dispute in January, 1696 .

The main correction matter and the reasons

“The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates” Deletion: an original source is indefinite or creation and value is low

“The lord of Okinoshima soon found the case outside his official competency and sent Ahn to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu” Deletion: value is low.

“After Ahn return to Chosun, he testified that” Addition: clarification of source

“However in the record of Japan, such events were not and even didn't go to Edo.” Addition: The record of the two countries is described in parallel for enormous discrepancy

“the provincial governor reported the incident to the Tokugawa Shogunate, which warned the governor of Busan, which was home to the Japanese consulate and quarter, to tighten the control of Korean "transgressors". This led to diplomatic friction between Hanseong and Edo” Major adjustment: meaning is indistinct (The main factor of the dispute is Shognate's demand to prohibit the Korean passages)

“In 1694, Korea warned Japan to stay away from Ulleung-do, and Japan prohibited Japanese vessels from going to Ulleung-do” Deletion: value is low (The dispute of Ullengdo has already been happened )

“In a diplomatic negotiation about Ulleung-do…….” Addition: value is high for the interpretation of historical records about dokdo

“As a response to the Korean warning, the Kanpaku…….” Major adjustment: misinterpretation (Original source is here[27][28])

Please describe an original source clearly when you point out the problem and point out the mistake of my poor English.--Opp2 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I understand that you want to edit information about Ahn Yong-bok. Could you make your argument more concise so that I see what you really want? The Ahn Yong-bok incident was when Ahn went to the Japanese government to confirm that Dokdo and Ulleungdo were Korean territories. Good friend100 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My purpose is exclusion of fabrication, the misinterpretation, and the information control. You think Ahn's testimony to be correct. It is your freedom. However, it is a public opinion inducement that excludes an inconvenient record. Everybody has to judge it showing both records.I do not want unrelated, abstract and emptiness discassion.--Opp2 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In the record of Japan, Ahn's footprint is understood in detail. He didn't go to Edo. I may add this. His testimony at Chosun and which can be trusted? It is your freedom which to be trusted. However, one-sided exclusion of information is not permitted. You would not have known these records of Japan. Because the Korean scholar excludes it. A general person who cannot read the original source can do nothing but believe the scholar's writing. It is exactly propaganda of the Korea by the Korea for the Korea.

1693

Apr 26, Ahn arrived at Yonago.

Apr 28, Ahn was placed under house arrest to Otani's house.

May 11, Ahn's going out is prohibited.

May 16, The shogunate instructs repatriation to Nagasaki.

May 29, Ahn leaved Yonago.

Jun 1, Ahn arraived Tottori.

Jun 2, Shikibu met Ahn.

Jun 7, Ahn leaved Tottori.

Jun 30, Ahn arrived Nagasaki.

etc.

--Opp2 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of description about Ogasawara

The following descriptions are should deleted.

Notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of Dokdo as it did with the acquisition of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands in the Pacific, when it contacted Great Britain and the U.S. several times, which were only remotely involved in them, as well as notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over the islands.

Deletion reason

1.There is no direct relation to Takeshima.

2.The incorporation of islands by Japan at that time didn't come in contact with another country except Ogasawara (ex. Borodino islands, Volcano islands, Marcus Island, Rasa, Kendrick, Weeks,Gangee, Sulfer, San Alessandro). Ogasawara is a peculiar example, because only Ogasawara already had been controlled effectively by other country(England).

Therefore, it is necessary to delete Ogasawara's description or to add the validity of the insistence of Japan by other cases for NPOV. I will delete when there is no logical and specific rebuttal. --Opp2 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"I will delete when there is no logical rebuttal" NO. You can not delete any part of the article on Dokdo without a full discussion on this so-called issue. This is a sensitive article which has been subject to vandalism from pro-Japanese (and to some extent, pro-Korean) users and if you go on with your eradication of information without majority consent, it will be considered vandalism. Also, please do not give users snippets of the article. Rather, post what the article was addressing using the quote you have provided. (e.g. what the article was talking about in the wider context) --DandanxD 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? Do though it doesn't protect? There is no your feelings theory needing. I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV. --Opp2 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, please do not challenge other editors on Wikipedia. You do not have to be an admin to restrict any vandalism. Large pieces of information in an article cannot be deleted without consensus with others because it is vandalism. If you want to delete state a reason. Good friend100 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am presenting grounds and logic to gain a consensus for NPOV. What is the reason to refuse a constructive discussion? Do you have the authority to obstruct NPOV? There is no your feelings theory needing. I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV. ----Opp2 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ask an admin for protect this article if you want to blockade even a logical, constructive and specific proposal.--Opp2 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if a proposal is logical or constructive. To delete a large piece of the article is considered vandalism and requires discussion before deletion. Good friend100 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that present discription of this topic is NPOV though you saw the cases that I presented? Isn't it a malignant information control? I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV.--Opp2 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the section, Ogasawara Island is important to the article. It shows how Japan notified the annexation of Ogasawara island, while keeping Dokdo's annexation secret. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Korea claims that Japan illegally annexed Dokdo while the Ogasawara island was annexed after other countries were notified. That is not POV.

And, Ogasawara island was already being controlled, as you mentioned, by England and Japan annexed it while notifying England. However, Japan did not notify Korea of the annexation.

The information is about annexation disputes that happened between Korea and Japan. There is nothing wrong or irrevelent with that information. Good friend100 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not want unrelated, abstract and emptiness discassion. It is useless of time. Let's entrust it to the admin's judgment. Please teach when you know the reporting method to admin because I do not know this system well.--Opp2 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ogasawara case is a very important certainly for Korea POV. The precondition of Ogasawara that another country was controlled effectively Takeshima that was not is different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Ogasawara is important because there is a difference with Takeshima. Other cases are not important because it is the same as Takeshima. It is convenient in the insistence of South Korea that there is a difference. It is inconvenient that there is no difference. Is this NPOV?I hope a logical discussion. --Opp2 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Korea of your comment was replaced with Japan. "Reading the section, other cases are important to the article. They shown that Japan was able to acquire title without notifications. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Japan claims that legally annexed Dokdo while the ohter cases islands were annexed without notification. That is not POV. And, other cases were not already being uncontrolled, by other countries and Japan annexed it without notifying other counties. Therefore, Japan did not notify of the annexation quite similarly." In your logic, this is admitted. Therefore, I should add other cases. I say that stop both because it become garrulous. --Opp2 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, In reply to your comment, I do not think you understand Wikipedia and its operations. I may not be an administrator but that does not mean I do not understand Wikipedia guidlines. Since this page has been 'semi-protected', if you delete/modify/add anything to this article, without consulting other users, it will be considered as vandalism. I think you should read the guidlines surrounding Wikipedia. Also, the 'admin' does not control everything I think you should understand that. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia created by users like me and you, not soley by admins. Also, I consider the Ogasawara part very relevent because as Goodfriend has said, it shows how Japan knew Korea's soveriegnty over Dokdo, thus, to make things easier for them, decided not to alert other countries of their annexation of that part of Korea beforehand, like they did with Ogasawara. --DandanxD 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is semi-rprotect, I discuss here before edit. You try to prohibit even a logical discussion for the edit. I think you should read the guidlines surrounding Wikipedia. Feelings theory and your subjectivity is unnecessary. Did Japan know that 石島 of the decree41 was Takeshima? Do though the dialect theory is a hypothesis that has come out after the ww2? You should study the effective cotrol and the sovereignty of International Law. In question wasnot the notification obligation. It is because it is an insistence based on a deliberate selection of information. I should add the following sentences to exclude manipulation of information if not agreeing to the deletion .

The English had already lived in Ogasawara, the port was constructed, and the whaler in each country was using. Therefore, the negotiation of each country was indispensable in the territorial dispute. However, Japan acquired title by occupation of many uninhabited island cases without notification(ex. Borodino, Volcano, Marcus etc.). Any protest has not been received to title of Japan about these islands up to the present time. Dokdo was an uninhabited island where any country was not controled effectively at that time. Therefore, Japan insist that Dokto's situation is completely corresponding to not Ogasawara but these uninhabited islands cases.

Choices are two. Both are described or both are deleted to avoide a manipulation of information(basic propaganda technique). Let's discuss the notification obligation after this topic. However, one is advised. If this site and Korean professor of InternationalLaw(Myong Ji) have been trusted[29], you should read the original of the quoted scholar. You might be greatly disappointed. A cruel misinterpretation and fabrication are done. --Opp2 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why Ogasawara island is relevant to Dokdo. Please give a clear, conicse reason why you think it should be deleted. It is perfectly fine and by deleting it, you will commit vandalism. And stop criticizing others. They are trying to help. Good friend100 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only an opinion of South Korea to resemble Ogasawara. It is an information control to write only one of insistences and case. Then, the insistence of Japan is similarly added. You should agree because that is based on your logic. Which is logical has the reader judge it. Is there any problem?

"Reading the section, other cases are important to the article. They shown that Japan was able to acquire title without notifications. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Japan claims that legally annexed Dokdo while the ohter cases islands were annexed without notification. That is not POV. And, other cases were not already being uncontrolled, by other countries and Japan annexed it without notifying other counties. Therefore, Japan did not notify of the annexation quite similarly." This is based on your logic. --Opp2 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The mentioning of Ogasawara is only an example to support the conclusion that "(In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)" Regardless of whether or not the British had controlled Ogasawara, I'm sure that the British left the island later & also Koreans weren't notified of the annexation of Dokdo until 1906; therefore, the Japanese didn't notify to Korea even when there should have been the necessity/obligation to do so, while they did to the British gov when there was a necessity (is that right, that British controlled the Bonin islands). (Wikimachine 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

It is a notification obligation in the title by occupation and a quotation case. Your rebuttal is irrelevant. It is unrelated to the contradiction of Japan (insistence on two or more title) for this topic. Because it is an opportunity, I tell the contradiction of Japan and international law. I do not think that you know International Law well. International Law concerning title of occupation has developed as follows.

1.Until the 17th century: The discovery was made title.

2.18-20th century:The discovery was made a inchoate title, and the effective control came to be requested for acquisition.

In addition, the effective control comes to be demanded from not only the acquisition of title but also continuance in the 20th century. "The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right. (PALMAS CASE)" The insistence of Japan can be interpreted as that effective control for the maintenance of the title was established by the Shimane incorporation in 1905 according to the development of International Law. An official site of Japanese Government is "Reconfirmation. " Who decided that "terra null policy"?

And, it is an old trick that insists on two or more title and not illegal. You will study the insistence of U.S. in PALMAS case, study insistance of Indonesia and Malaysia in Ligitan and Sipadan case. Even if each insistence does the conflict, it doesn't become equitable estoppel. The nation insists every mortal title if there is a possibility. That is, "terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument" is a POV of the Korea by the Korea for the Korea.

There is fabrication with a cruel part "After World War II". "CEASE THE JAPAN'S ADMINISTRATION POWER" in scapin677 is fabricated with "EXCLUDE JAPAN". The modal meaning is quite different. Sovereignty(It contains right of administration) and title cannot be distinguished. If the cease of the administrative power means the title by cession, the U.S. army base in South Korea will become a territory of the United States. Why does South Korea fabricate it?　Because there is no advantageous one for South Korea in International Law. A general person believes in it blindly because the Korean scholar misinterprets it as follows.

A Korean scholar says that "M.F. Lindley viewed it proper to regard notification and effective occupation as the necessary conditions for occupation, before and after the signing of the 1885 Berlin Act."[30]

However, the original is as follows.

"BACKWARD TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONA LAW" by M.F.LINDLEY(1926)

CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

p143

Article 34 will be dealt with in the Capter on 'Notification.' Article 35 calls for several observations.

(syncopation)

p157

According to views adopted by Britain, Germany, France and the United States, at the time of before and after the Berlin conference, there were no colonial states which took exception to the application of new rule of occupation, and it seems to be justified to say that all recent acquisition of territory obeys to this rule irrespective of whether it is the African coast or not (The Korean scholar might have summarized around here. However, here is a part concerning "EFFECTIVE".)

CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION

p295[31]

These isolated special agreements, when taken into conjunction with the fact that, apart from the region dealt with in Article 34, notifications have been the exception rather than the rule, seve to emphasize the point that such notifications were not required by general law.

In the discussion with the Korean, the second source is unreliable. The primitive source is indispensable. A present description of Dokdo article is a Korean propaganda to cheat man who doesn't know the base of International Law. The judicial precedent of the island is for your information presented.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court further states that "at the time when these activities werecarried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

Japan is expressing the protest to the effective controls of present South Korea.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

Finally, Indonesia states that the waters around Ligitan and Sipadan have traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. The Court observes, however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority.

Acts by Ahn Yong-bok of the 17th century was as private person. A Chosun government also denied the relation to him.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically.The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.

Takeshima away at 92km from Ullengdo cannot be interpreted as an attached island of Ullengdo.

PALMAS

an inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, difinitive title put forward by another State.

The effective control becomes excellent title.

PALMAS

The growing insistence with whichinternational law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.

There is no immediate evidence to effective control by Korea Empire or Chosun.

PALMAS

Territorial sovereignty, as has already beensaid, involves the exclusive right to display activities of a state. This right has corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory. Without manifesting its its territorial sovereignty in a manner corresponding to circumstance, the State cannot fulfil this duty.

There is no immediate evidence to effective control by Korea Empire or Chosun. She had not performed her duty.

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(PCIJ)

It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

The effective control becomes excellent title.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivites with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands. Given the circumstances of the case, and in particular in view of the evidence furnished by the Parties, the Court concludes that Malaysia has title to Ligitan and Sipadan on the basis of the effectivites referred to above.

Reliable evidence to effective control is necessary also in the uninhabited island. In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905. Stone Island of the 41st decree by Korea Empire at 1900 is also indefinite.

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain(ICJ)

Certain types of activities invoked by Bahrain such as the drilling of artesian wells would, taken by themselves, be considered controversial as acts performed a titre de souverain. The construction of navigational aids, on the other hand, can be legally relevant in the case of very small islands. In the present case, taking into account the size of Qit'at Jaradah, the activities carried out by Bahrain on that island must be considered sufficient to support Bahrain's claim that it has sovereignty over it.

Reliable evidence to effective control is necessary also in the uninhabited island.

Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration(PCA)

Fishing Activities by Private Persons

For state activity capable of establishing a claim for sovereignty,the Tribunal must look to the state licensing and enforcement activities concerning fishing described above.

In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ)

For the Court, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of this view, without it being possible however, to draw any definitive conclusion as to the sovereignty over the groups, since this question must ultimately depend on the evidence which relates directly to possession.

The insistence that Usando is Takeshima by South Korea is presumption. Stone Island of the 41st decree by Korea Empire at 1900 is also ndefinite. In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ)

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the connection became closer again, because of the growing importance of oyster fishery. The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation, such as criminal proceedings concerning the Ecrehos, the levying of taxes on habitable houses or huts built in the islets since 1889, the registration in Jersey of contracts dealing with real estate on the Ecrehos.

In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture(local administration) from 1905.

PALMAS

A rule of this kind adopted by Powers in1885 for African continent does not apply deplano to other region, and thus the contract with Taruna of 1885, or with Kandahar-Taruna of 1889, even if they were to be considered as first assertions of sovereignty over Palmas would not be subject to the rule of notification.

It is not necessary to notify in occupation ahead excluding Africa. Occupation by at 1905 is effective.

You might understand the reason why the South Korean does the misinterpretation and fabrication. And, it is necessary to conceal such information for Korea. These are the reasons why the South Korea government runs away from ICJ. Please do after acquiring accurate knowledge if you talk about International Law (ex. tella null and notification). --Opp2 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I will introduce this[32] Korean scholar's further one fabrication.

This stupid Korean scholar say fallows.

" William E. Hall also argues that the Act of Berlin is not only valid for the contracting parties but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says ...an agreement, made between all the states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule".

However, the original is as follows.[33]

The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded. Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.

France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.

This stupid Korean scholar intentionally deleted "Nevertheless". The purpose is to fabricate it to interpret as an opposite meaning. In addition he say that "John B. Moore also advocates the obligation of notification by citing Hall' s above-mentioned argument". Moore quotes the distription of HALL as it is in his book(1906 A DIGEST INTERNATIONAL LAW by John Bassett More). That is, Moore doesn't admit approval as the common law either.

This stupid Korean seems to be a "Professor of International Law, Myong Ji University, Korea."--Opp2 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here folks, we see a classic example of Japanese propaganda. --DandanxD 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The judicial precedent and books of scholars of International Law who doesn't hang bias seem to become japanese propaganda.--Opp2 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Opp2, a better alternative to "stupid" would be "obtuse". (Wikimachine 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

He is doing intentionally. "Obtuse" is improper.--Opp2 12:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, I think you should read the wikipedia rules and guidelines because it seems you don't know how Wikipedia operates. Good friend100 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the guideline written not to make the lie of propaganda clear? I presented the source of the theory that denied the notification obligation. What you should do is proof of the notification obligation and formal announcement of Japan that Japan acquire in1905. --Opp2 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeh mate. Opp2, you should seriously read Wikipedia guidelines as it is obvious that you do not have a clue about them. --203.217.74.96 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the guideline written not to make the lie of propaganda clear? I presented the source of the theory that denied the notification obligation. What you should do is proof of the notification obligation and formal announcement of Japan that Japan acquire in1905. --Opp2 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Korean scholar of International Law announced a thesis about comparison Takeshima and other cases in japanese memoir of international law.(釜山大学校法科大学副教授朴培根国際法外交雑誌 in August, 2006 p32-47) He says that " The incorporation wish by a private man, the confirmation of terra null, and the decision in the Cabinet Council are Japanese typical method for acquisition of terra null island. As respects Takeshima, Japan carefully conformed to these precedents to fill the requirement for acquisition on International Law. Between Japanese acquisition by occupation cases of other islands and Takeshima, there is no difference. Japan might as well insist on acquisition by occupation in 1905. South Korea should prove it to be no terra null ground in 1905."--Opp2 08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will delete Ogasawara's description because there is no specific, logical rebuttal. The South Korean scholar also admits.[34] Or, should I add the insistence of Japan?--Opp2 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That source in Japanese, so how I can tell the neutrality of it? Anyway, have you bothered reading these guidelines when you're presenting your argument because some of the links weren't very NPOV? WP:RS & WP:NPOV Oncamera 06:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of my link is an original source. My interpretation is not added. Even descriptions of this article, the site described in Korean is quoted. Are these sites Korea POV? If it is so, it is necessary to delete them. Let's confirm it to your friend who can read Japanese. If you can read Korean, I may input Japanese. There is a translation tool.

Could you present the original source of the bold-faced type part? It is a description that doesn't exist in the original source that I know.

An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads (translated into English)

The Liancourt Rocks are called Dokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo (Seok-do) since 1900 by the promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.

Is it NPOV? --Opp2 07:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An analyses of present description of "Other Maps and records" part. [35]

Blue character(2,825 words):Insistence of Korea and KoreaPOV interpretation
Red character(500 words):Insistence of Japan and JapanPOV interpretation

In addition, there are no following important informations.

1.Usando investigation in 1882 by 李奎遠

He reported that Ullngdo was a name of the island and Usan was a name of the country.

2.A Map in 1899 by Korea empire

Takeshima is not even in the range of the map.[36]

3.Ullengdo investigation in 1900 by 禹用鼎

The Korean Imperial Ordinance 41 is based on this report. Takeshima is not understood.

4.Record of Japan in 1903[37]

The Japanese and the Korean are calling Takeshima yanko-island. It contradicts the stone islet's hypothesis(石島).

5.Japanese occupation cases(Borodino islands, Volcano islands, Marcus Island, Rasa, Kendrick, Weeks,Gangee, Sulfer, San Alessandro)

A Korean　scholar of International Law admited to the same as Takeshima.

Is present discription NPOV? Korean will see only what they want to see.--Opp2 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To Opp2

Other than the fact that your English is hard to follow, your Japanese point of view is pretty hard to stand. This article is the work of several dozens of people, of each more than half are neutral non-Japanese/Korean. Your accustion of editers being Koreans, and calling scholars stupid, no matter how unlogical they may sound to you, is childish behavior. I suggest that you first straighten out your facts, and clean up your English before making arguments. --General Tiger December 11, 2006, 10:32 (UTC)

Here, second sources seem to be given to priority more than original sources. "each more than half are neutral non-Japanese/Korean" are cheated　by seccond source by Korean. You should read the book on HALL and Rindley. This book is unrelated to my poor English[38][39].--Opp2 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First, those books are irrelevent to the Dokdo article. Also, most editors here are not cheaters. Stop believing that only Koreans cheat: I've seen worse cases concerning Japanese editors. Also, please read the PDF below. They contain all major evidence that's relevent to yours. This should show you how you should state your arguements. --General Tiger December 11, 2006, 11:20 (UTC)

Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78-89 (PDF)

Do you think that the notification obligation is unrelated to this article? I completely agree to you. I should delete the description concerning the notification obligation and terra null policy.

Please teach me the following evidences if a present description is fair. I hope in original sources(Judicial precedent or Book on scholar of International Law until 1950).

Evidence that notification obligation had been approved on International Law.

Evidence that Japan insisted on title by occupation at1905(in association with terra null policy).

Evidence that cease administration power means the title by cession on International Law(in association with scap677).

Evidence that indirect presumption is admitted as will of occupancy on International Law(in association with imperial decree No 41).

My best regards. --Opp2 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me time? My end-term tests goes on until next week. After that, I'll be happy to talk with you and figure out how to make this article better. Also, I'll hvae some friends keep up the discussions. Glad talking with you.--General Tiger December 11, 2006, 11:45 (UTC)

I see. However, I cannot permit this scholar[40]. He don't have ethics as the scholar. He becomes only the obstruction of the problem solving.--Opp2 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over that article, and have to admit that he needs to clean up his arguments. HOWEVER, I'd like for you to not bring web pages that has not been used in writing this article. This place is to fix Wikipedia articles, not argue about whether every Dokdo related web site is right or wrong. Okay? --General Tiger

I see. However, I quote original sources from the Web site. Then, the report of Stanford that you presented is made a theme. The author mentions that "In addition, Korea asserts that numerous maps, including one by Japanese cartographer Dabuchi Tomohiko, verify its title to Tokdo."

Judicial precedent of PALMAS that he also quoted.

Anyhow, a map affords only an indication - and that a very indirect one - and, except when annexed to legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights (PALMAS)

I do not know whether he overlooked this describes or disregarded intentionally. This is only one of many problems in his report. I will continue after your investigation result. --Opp2 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't General Tiger say that this isn't the place to argue about whether every Dokdo related web site is right or wrong? If you took out the piece on Ogasawara, the article wouldn't explain as well to the reader about what Japan did that was a contradiction to what it did in previous cases. Oncamera 11:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The report of Stanford is quoted directly as a source in Dokdo article. Do you refuse the verification of the quotation source? Or, do you scare the fact?. I am confirming the content of the contradiction. Everything starts from the setting that Japan insists on an acquisition of Takeshima in 1905. However Japanese government say that "In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision in January".[41] It is not "acquire" but it is "reaffirm."

The appearance of local power for the extension of own territory(not terra null) is a demand from International Law in 19th century.

Treaty of St. Germain(1919)

Article 10. The autonomous territory was to have its own governor and an elected diet with legislative functions in specific areas

PALMAS CASE

The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.

It is corresponding to the insistence of Japanese Government. A summary of present description and my doubt are as follows. Quotation sources don't write their evidences(primitive sources).

"Quotation sources don't write their evidences(primitive sources)". Could you explain what you mean by this? (Wikimachine 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

1.Japan say that she acquired Takeshima in 1905(Japan doesn't say like that. The primitive source is uncertain)

Why is the "primitive" source "uncertain"? (Wikimachine 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Because The mention of Japanese Government like that (Japan aquire Takeshima in 1905) cannot be confirmed.--Opp2 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

2.The object of acquisition by occupation should be terra null(Japan doesn't say as an aquisition)

Could you provide evidence that shows that Japan doesn't say "acquisition"? And what makes not saying "acquisition" so special? Also, do you mean the Japanese government... Japanese historians... etc.? Who's "saying"? (Wikimachine 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Naturally, it is Japanese Government. You should study "appeal to ignorance (probatio diabolica)."--Opp2 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a book? (Wikimachine 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Acquisition and maintenance are another juristic acts.

Acquisition by occupation

object:terra null

effective controll:necessity

notification:preferable (not obligation and defective factor)

Maintenance of the title

object:not terra null(It has already acquired it)

effective controll:necessity

notification:no

Do you think that the purchase of home is the same as use?--Opp2 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this. Also, please provide citation for your statements above (effective controll:necessity....) (Wikimachine 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

3.It contradicts her insistence on acquisition in 1618.(Contradiction is generated based on the insistence that doesn't exist)

Could you find an article that says this? (Wikimachine 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

4.International Law obligated the notification at case of the acquisition by occupation. (The notification obligation cannot be confirmed from the judicial precedent and scholars of International Law. Japan doesn't say that she acquired in 1905.)

Could you also give a proper citation for this? (Wikimachine 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

5.Japan notified for Ogasawara.(Ogasawara was controlled effectively by England. Takeshima and many other cases were different. There is no notification obligation because Japan doesn't insist on acquisition in 1905. The notification obligation on international law cannot confirm)

If the notification obligation cannot be confirmed by another source, then the example shouldn't be put. In other words, the example shouldn't be in the article if it has no source. But if it does have a source, then it stays. And if you want to offer a counter-argument to the example (if it stays) then you ought to find an article that says what you want. Or else, it's WP:OR. (Wikimachine 22

56, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Please do not interfere if you can not answer. --Opp2 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rude to say "do not interfere". The Wikipedians whom you are talking to are much more experienced than you and they have been contributing constructively to Wikipedia for a long time now. (Wikimachine 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Please present the reliable judicial precedent and primitive source based on that abundant experiences. I hope for the discussion based on evidence with reliability. I roll out the red carpet if you can present. --Opp2 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I point out another one problem of the report for you (It is still a lot).

"Critical date" is very basic term and law in International Law. After other country express her protest, the accomplished fact is not considered in International Law.

PALMAS

However, if the contestation is based on the fact that the other Party has actually displayed sovereignty, it cannot be sufficient to establish the title by which territorial sovereignty was validly acquired at a certain moment; it must also be shown that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist at the moment which for the decision of the dispute must be critical. This demonstration consists in the actual display of State activities, such as belongings only to the territorial sovereign.

LIGITAN AND SIPADAN

According to Indonesia, it was thus at that time that the “critical date”arose in the present dispute. It contends that the two Parties undertook, in an exchange of letters of 22 September 1969, to refrain from any action which might alter the status quo in respect of the disputed islands.

Court primarily to analyse the effectivités which date from the period before 1969, the year in which the Parties asserted conflicting claims to Ligitan and Sipadan - Nature of the activities to be taken into account by the Court in the present case.

The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest.

Japanese Government declared the protest to the South Korea government in 28 in January, 1952. The protest by Japanese Government is still continued annually. However, the author of stanford report seems not to know even "critical date." He is writing as follows.

Subsequent to the end of the Japanese occupation, Tokdo saw its first Korean inhabitants. Since then, there has been a continual Korean presence of at least one or two fishing families and a permanent coast guard. The South Korean government has also taken steps to develop the area. In 1995 for example, the government began building harbor facilities ........

After WWI, title by conquest became unlawful. I do not know whether he overlooked describe of PALMAS or disregarded intentionally.--Opp2 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, did you give your source for "LIGITAN AND SIPADAN" example & all preceding ones? Also, you're getting too deep into the international laws... I would like to see ev. of such laws myself. That's called original research. What you need, Opp2, is a scholarly or research paper, book, etc., which says what you advocate. You can't just knit together all these laws & ownership etc. and then say whatever's on Wikipedia's invalid. On the other hand, Korean Wikipedians should provide citation on the terra nullus thing. (Wikimachine 06:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

It is on the site of ICJ if it is a judicial precedent of ICJ. [42] Original source of "LIGITAN AND SIPADAN" is here [43]. As for you, even only "LIGITAN AND SIPADAN" should read the whole. You will understand the basic logic of International Law and the requisite evidence. If you can read Korean, the verification of the evidence of South Korea will read this thesis[44]. It is comparatively normal in the South Korean scholar. After that, let's compare the report of Stanford and this article of Dokdo with my comment. --Opp2 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE is here[45]. In this judicial precedent, you can understand the theory concerning the evidence of the effective control.

Eastern Greenland Case is here[46]. You can understand the theory of an interpretation of a treaty and uninhabited ground.--Opp2 07:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please teach when why in what Japanese Government published the insistence that Japan acquire in 1905. However, it will waste of your time. Terra null theory started from the one Japanese scholar's assumption in 1962. His name is Matsukura and he said that "It seems that Japanese government is insisting on title by occupation(acquisition)." Most South Korean scholars considered this insisted by all of Japan. The reason is that it is convenient for Korea. The insistence about possibility of Korean protest and notification obligation is also the same. The South Korean scholar puts away the hypothesis for a fact. General person who read their books seem that it is true. And, a present description of this article is completed. Have you doubted the approval of the notification obligation? Did you know the answer of Chosun that had made Ahn liar's foolish people? I think South Korea to be a gag and a thought control nation.--Opp2 12:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's wikipedia objective to interpret laws nor pretend to be a courtroom and judge a dispute. You seem to have a good handle on these laws; is there a way you can contribute to this article besides finding means to delete parts of it? I mean, you do present what problems there are in it, so maybe you can improve them rather than delete. Oncamera 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The notification obligation is an insistence on International Law. The insistence of the judicial precedent and the scholar will have to be referred. The world standard of the territorial issue has only International Law. Present discription is mixing the finding of a jury with the insistence of South Korea. First of all, the fact and the insistence will have to be separated completely. It is true that Japan incorporated Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905. It is an insistence of South Korea that assumes that it is considered to be acquisition by occupation, and there was a notification obligation. The insistence of Japan is "It is for not acquisition by occupation but maintenance of title and there is no notification obligation even if it is assumed acquisition by occupation." --Opp2 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did not Korea release an imperial ordinance (41) in 1900 that claimed Dokdo even before Japan incorporated Takeshima in 1905? If there's a problem with how a paragraph is worded to make something point out only one country's claim, then simply add info about the other country's counterclaim to show both sides of the dispute. And really, can you stop with comments like I think South Korea to be a gag and a thought control nation? This isn't the place for hateful propaganda and it doesn't add to this discussion. Oncamera 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is such wisdom. In the fact, the imperial ordinance is "石島(stone island). "And, do you know there is a record that Korean called Takeshima yanko island in 1903? Do you know Takeshima is not recognized in the Ullengdo investigation of the Korea empire in 1900? Do you know the imperial ordinance was put out based on that investigation report? Do you know there is a name of a place that still uses "石" in Ullengdo? Do you know there is a record in 1906 to read as not dok but dol the 石? Do you know the Korea empire in 1899 cannot recognize Takeshima?[47] The fact and the hypothesis are different.--Opp2 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know maps don't really mean much when there's so much confusion between them; the names; the positioning etc.? Let's look at some more: chronicle of maps & Japanese map of Korea from 1877 Oncamera 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumption doesn't become evidence in International Law.Needing it is not the recognition of Japan but confrontive activity record by Korea empir.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE

For the Court, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of this view, without it being possible however, to draw any definitive conclusion as to the sovereignty over the groups, since this question must ultimately depend on the evidence which relates directly to possession.

PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN

The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.

In addition, let's accurately verify the map[48]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

A public map is effective to the proof of geographic recognition. However, it doesn't become the evidence of the effective control, except when attaching to the law. That is, it is a map of the Korea empire that proves geographic recognition of the Korea empire, and is not a map of Japan. The map of Japan can be used only to prove geographic recognition of Japan. Well, please present a public map by Korean empire where 石島 of imperial ordinance is drawn.--Opp2 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You continue to mention Ligitan and Sipadan; are they supposed to be used as a precedent to be applied to this article? Once again, Wikipedia isn't a place to judge disputes, so if you think this should somehow be mentioned in the article, then please find a means to do so. Oncamera 16:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

International Law is the only union standard of the territory fixation. Do not escape from the reality.--Opp2 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reality and making assumptions are two different things. Who is to say a judge would find the case of Ligitan and Sipadan in International Law to be applicable to Dokdo/Takeshima as some sort of precedent? Can you find in the international lawbook where it concisely says "Dokdo is actually illegally occupied by Korea and belongs to Japan because Japan claimed it in 1905"? Oncamera 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

International Law concerning the effective control is a common law. The civil law concerning the contract is the same as the purchase contract of the house and buy of the personal computer applicable. You run away by the excuse of exception because it is groundless. --Opp2 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the Korean scholar of International Law also is admitting the other cases at japanese memoir of international law.(釜山大学校法科大学副教授朴培根国際法外交雑誌 in August, 2006 p32-47) He says that " The insistence of Japanese Government can interpret that the changed history title by the request of modern International Law. Judging from the viewpoint of modern International Law, it is logical, possible, and, not meaningless. However, it is another question whether to have done occupation in 1905 by such purport. The incorporation wish by a private man, the confirmation of terra null, and the decision in the Cabinet Council are Japanese typical method for acquisition of terra null island. As respects Takeshima, Japan carefully conformed to these precedents to fill the requirement for acquisition on International Law. Between Japanese acquisition by occupation cases of other islands and Takeshima, there is no difference. Japan might as well insist on acquisition by occupation in 1905. South Korea should prove it to be no terra null ground in 1905." I presented judicial precedents and books on the scholar of International Law who denied the notification obligation. Should I introduce the thesis of a Japanese scholar who denies the notification obligation? Are these original search?--Opp2 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Government will not change the insistence though it is his advice. Because own choices will be decreased. Japan will do the following insistences on three stages at the court of justice.

1.title by peaceful, continuous effective control (from edo period)

2.title by occupation in 1905

assurance when it is judged that another one island in 1877 order is Takeshima.

3.title by conquest in 1905

assurance when the evidence of the effective control of Korea empir is discovered in the future

The insistence on two or more titles is allowed as a court technique. This is not contradiction. --Opp2 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When the evidence(judicial precedent and official original source) concerning contradiction of Japanese Government and the notification obligation are not presented, I will delete it from the description of article. I cannot leave the lie. --Opp2 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THIS LONG AND LONG ARGUMENTS... AND I WROTE MY POINTS DOWN. Please if you are not going to read until the end, don't start reading it.

As long as if Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima," it is not a humungous conflict. We are not the ones who decides the name of these islets. AND THE READERS WILL KNOW THAT.

In my opinion, people in this talk page does not understand the true controversy. The two controversies people are confusing with are, "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" and "the argument itself." People are thinking way too off. The argument will not solve even when the name of the article changes back and forth thousand times.

1. "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" is more of Korean Japanese controversy. Which means that anybody outside of Korea, and Japan, really makes opinions not facts. Korea claims have the evidence. Japan also claims have the evidence. Do Americans have the evidence? Do Canadians have the evidence? Do Italians have the evidence? Do you have the evidence? This jumps into my next point. Word counting in the media has no connection here, because only one of the three candidates (Dokto, Takeshima, and Liancourt rorks) is right (or perhaps the "best"), and nobody knows that outside of Korea and Japan. Frequent use of word is not the right answer, that is the word people often used outside of Korea and Japan, it might be wrong, it might be right. Do you know? You can make opinions... not the true statements, since there would be millions of people opposing you. So nobody can officially SOLVE the problem, you can try, opposing millions of people arguing against you, threatening you, or sending you virus.

2. So why don't we jump into my next point? Why do we bother changing the article that will not solve anything? Did changes to the article "Liancourt Rocks" into "Dokdo" solve any problem? I'm not saying that "Dokdo is the right word," but why do we bother changing the article that will suprise thousands of people and erect the non-ending conflict again? In my opinion. We should calm ourselves down, and just pause this non-ending conflict, and try best as we can to stablize and stay consistent.

So therefore, I want "Dokdo" to stay in this article.

Thank you for reading...

--Jamesshin92 04:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling it to leave a present lie by the violence of the number? I do not touch the name. Is it escapism? It is an insistence without logic. The evidence that I demand is not a second source. To avoid the ribart war, I am demanding the discussion based on reliable evidence. The judicial precedent and the writing of the scholar of the third country are necessary to maintain neutrality. It is necessary to separate the fact and the insistences. Korea insists on a present description in all. The lie is a lie. It is not said not to say. The feelings theory and the abstraction theory are unnecessary.--Opp2 04:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I squeeze the question to the following two.

1.When, why and in what did Japanese Government publish the insistence that Japan acquired Takeshima in 1905?

2.Presentation of judicial precedent and books by scholar who donnot have a bias about this issue assumed for notification obligation to exist.

I think that these are very easy and basic questions. Present article is being written concluding that these exist. Please prove a present description to be NPOV. The easy way of avoiding the edit war is to present reliable evidences each other. I have already presented the judicial precedent and the scholar who assumes that there is no notification obligation. In addition, I introduced the thesis of the scholar of Korean International Law who had compared Japanese occupation cases in detail. If it is not possible to present reliable evidences, it is admitted the lie and Korea POV. Deceiving by the abstract argument is meaningless.--Opp2 05:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So your saying that "Dokdo" is a lie? Honestly speaking, is the word "lie" a moral way to prove your point?

"It is an insistence without logic.", "The lie is a lie." and "If it is not possible to present reliable evidences, it is admitted the lie and Korea POV. Deceiving by the abstract argument is meaningless" can be true according to your call. However, this will not (again), solve any problem so far. Please state an example to prove your point because your arguement will convince nobody. "To present reliable evidence" is the hardest part. We all agree with you on that, but the fact is, how can Koreans and Japanese present the evidence that will convince (almost) everybody to agree on one thing and unite? We are not there yet to change the name of the article, if that is your goal.

1. Even if your arguement is true and perfectly make sence. There would still be tons of editors against you. So, it is on going arguement for sure.

2. This article is NPOV because, Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima

Let me put it this way; Wikipedia do accept "Takeshima" in this article and it is nutral enough so far, but nothing more can be done. Think about it, how will you convince majority of opposing editors by dishonouring the oppositions such as calling Dokdo a "Lie" and "meaningless"?

If you are not going to solve the problem, no matter how rational it is, it is a time waste --Jamesshin92 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The name of the article" is not my subject. Your story lacks concreteness and logic. I think that you cannot understand my story. --Opp2 22:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have a hard time following your English; it makes what you're saying or arguing difficult to understand so then it's difficult to respond in a related manner. Oncamera 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the judicial precedent. --Opp2 04:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the descriptions that I am making a problem is as follows.

“Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.”

“The earliest record for Japan's claim on Dokdo comes from Japanese records that Dokdo was their territory since 1618.[18] This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).”

“In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.”

I demand only an original source of this description by Japanese government. It is very simple and easy. If the insistence that Japan acquired terra null in 1905 cannot be confirmed, these becomes a lie. Your comment is not useful for this proof at all. I think that you stray the topic because you can not answer.--Opp2 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To Opp2: It seems like, you have a strong support for Japanese Governments. Fair enough. So you are satisfied with the title of the article? My appology.

Is the assignment of the lie a declaration of support? I only said that title of this article was not a theme of this topic. Do you want to fabricate my comment looks like the Japanese mention about terra null?--Opp2 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)　

I will counter your point. "The earliest record for Japan's claim on Dokdo comes from Japanese records that Dokdo was their territory since 1618."

"Dokdo was first incorporated into the Korean Shilla Dynasty in 512 AD. " Honestly, it is not too wrong to say that Koreans were the first to claim these islets.

I accept your point that Japanese has an evidence of the ownership of these islets. However, Dokdo is presently under Korean Government; it is administered and controlled by Korean Government.

The meaning of administration, sovereignty, and title of territory is different. I think you do not know International Law. Please study international law and critical date and judicial precedent. In addition, it is quite unrelated my question. --Opp2 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So it is definetly wrong about the point that "the description by Japanese government should be the only source just because that it is clear." It is definetly not nutral, and it is obvious that you are too bias.

It is quite unrelated my question. --Opp2 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you are just seeking a way to oppose Korean Aspect of these islets. Even if I'm wrong, it is a reasonable observation. The logical reason is that, you simply give tones of Japanese POV, and it loses the intention of the argument. Recommend other editors, what to edit and what to improve, and try to be nutral at the same time. --Jamesshin92 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not Japan POV. Because the insistence of Japan like the description of this article cannot be confirmed. This means the description was fabricated. In the interpretation, the two countries will differ. However, the difference is not generated from with or without of description. Your comment is not useful for this proof at all. I think that you stray the topic because you can not answer. I am not demanding a meaningless comment. What you should do is only one. You should present an original source of the description by Japanese government. If it is not possible to present it, a present description about Japanse contradiction and terra null becomes a lie. --Opp2 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand fully what you are saying. Opp2, you are treating this as if its some sort of court case where people have to give evidence and sources to be right. Thats not Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure most of us don't even know what you want and what you want to change. Don't start up with some cheesy logic stuff you always explain and try to listen. Good friend100 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Present an original source of the description of "Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905". When did Japanese goverment say terra null incorporation in 1905? What was it recorded in? If it is not possible to present it, Japan didn't say that. In a word, it is fabrication. In Wikipedia, is the concoction recommended? It is very simple.--Opp2 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you need actual "Original Documents?" It is hard to find. This site mentions about "terra nullius incorporation in 1905:" [49]. Scroll down the page. --Jamesshin92 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the site is an official site or announcement of Japanese Government? In addition, this site quotes fabrication by the South Korean scholar[50]. I have already clarified the fabrication of the notification obligation by the Korean scholar.

Prove to me that this site quotes fabrication by the South Korean scholar.--Jamesshin92 00:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already confirmed an official announcement of Japanese Government.

1.Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on July 13, 1953

Japan did the incorporation procedure according to the demand of modern International Law in 1905.

2.Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on February 10, 1954

Japan did the incorporation procedure according to the demand of modern International Law in 1905.

3.Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on September 20, 1956

Japan did the incorporation in 1905 by same procedure as Japanese acquisition by occupation.

4.Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on January 7, 1962

The incorporation of Japan in 1905 is a reconfirmation of the will to take possession as a modern state.

5.http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

In 1905, Japan reaffirmed its intention to possess Takeshima by a Cabinet decision in January, followed by a notification by Shimane Prefecture in February, officially incorporating Takeshima as part of Shimane Prefecture.

Japan is insisting that Japan executed the same process as cases of acquisition by occupation. However, Japanese government never say that Japan acquired Takeshima by occupation in 1905 because it was terra null.

Even if the means is the same, the purpose is different. Historical title can be replaced with title of modern International Law by the same means as acquisition. There is no logical contradiction. Korean's scholar of International Law also admits this.--Opp2 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The thesis should describe the source for verify. The site doesn't describe even the original source clearly. The report of Stanford is also similar. If the judicial precedent is read, it is understood that this report has many problems. It is cheated by the authority named "Stanford". The misinterpretation and the fabrication of the record and judicial precedents are quoted mutually and everyone(especially Korean) convinced like the fact. No one confirms of the original source and verifies it. Korean will see only what they want to see. The result is a description of this artcle.

I should delete the description about Japanese contradiction and terra nullius for NPOV and clearing the fabrication if no one can confirm a Japanese government's original source.--Opp2 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning, you have no right whatsoever to delete the description about Japanese contradiction and terra nullius, without anybody withnessing your action. --Jamesshin92 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you say that the lie and POV have to leave at Wikipedia? Is that written in the guideline? Please teach where of the guideline to be being written.--Opp2 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you can say Korea is still part of the Japanese Empire because it was 'legal'. Look, Japan had to give back all the land belonging to other other nations after their massive defeat in the Great Pacific War (did you know that you lost?! or didn't they teach you that at school?). Your attitude with the whole "Japan took over Dokdo legally" is the reason why many Koreans are upset... Don't you get it? Dokdo was the first island the Japanese Empire invaded and by saying Dokdo is still part of Japan, is like saying, " the Korean annexation was right and just ". And it seems to me that you only bring up the 'Japanese' side- why don't you look into the Korean claims which outdate the Japanese invasion of Dokdo in 1905? --DandanxD 23:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No one gives you jurisdiction. Here is not a place where your cult is confessed. I have not been telling the story after WW2 yet. Don't switch the conversation. --Opp2 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the arguments are heading... I thought it was about the controversy, but some are talking about the name of the articles. (Wikimachine 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

I can't tell even what the argument is about, but I do see a lot of mention of "original sources" and truth vs. lies, which isn't the foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. Wiki is concerned with verifiability, not truth - we report in encyclopedic style what reliable sources say. Statements cited to reliable sources don't have to be government or original sources - they have to be verifiable, and not given undue weight. Sandy (Talk) 02:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not demanding the source of Japanese Government concerning all the article. I cannot even verify in this case. The souce of Japanese Government is needed for this case for the verification.--Opp2 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I was mentioning about the unclearness of this article several times. There is a user called User:Opp2 in Talk:Dokdo. He seems to be bias, and many editors in Wikipedia notice the issue. He claims that he will "delete the description about Japanese contradiction and terra nullius for NPOV and clearing the fabrication if no one can confirm a Japanese government's original source." I don't think this is a good idea, and I am afraid that Dokdo article will be edited in a wrong biased way, especially without coordination between editors. So I told him several times that he is bias and he doesn't simply have enough witness to simply support his argument. He is being really tough to protect himself against criticism from a lot of opposing editors. He demands for wikipedia editing guideline. The quote by this user: "Do you say that the lie and POV have to leave at Wikipedia? Is that written in the guideline? Please teach where of the guideline to be being written."

We definetly need experts to solve this problem.Jamesshin92 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No spacing out please, you don't have to address Opp2 in 3rd person when this is where he actively takes part in discussion. But I don't understand what Opp2 means by "lie and POV have to leave at Wikipedia". "lie and POV must leave from Wikipedia"? Which I agree, but then, Opp2, why would you say "you say that", as if you were disagreeing.

Plus, as I said before, as long as the advocates have scholarly articles proving their points, it's fine for the info to stay. However, I don't think Opp2 has any policy advocate for the "terra nulla" controversy. You keep making your own interpretations with your understanding of the international laws.... some of which, I think, are anachronistic. (Wikimachine 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC))

To Opp2, I hope you read all the comments above from Wiki experts I asked to come as a respond to "Is that written in the guideline?" You have nothing to say beyond this, and I hope we get back on track. Nevertheless, before you conclude your arguement somehow, I will keep my eye on this article, and I hope the experts make sure that this article is protected from possible vandalism.--Jamesshin92 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easy. Sandy said that "the relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources." The description "Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records and as well as a" terra nullius "Incorporation in 1905" cannot verify. Because the original source is not described clearly even at the reference cited. There is no verifiability. It violates the policy of Wikipedia. In the original sources that I examined, Japanese Government never say "terra nullius". Please assure the verifiability according to Wiki's guideline if you do not want to delete the discription about contradiction and terra nullius. --Opp2 04:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, is this site reliable sources?[51] The site quotes the South Korean scholar's fabrication uncritically. Being able to trust on this site is only image data of original source.--Opp2 05:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, you did not read all of the comments. You are just using some of the comments to support your answers somehow, however these comments are there for you to learn and think. Prove to me that the site is not reliable, and prove to me that every source in Wikipedia are reliable, plus I never said that this site [52]is the only reliable source. There might be more "reliable" sources out there, but you see, I think, all of us are dragging the problem too much, and exhausted. It might seem "easy" to you, however it is the complete opposite situation. I know that you are really interested removing the terra nullius records, nevertheless, we have gone too far, and yet you don't seem to have any conclusions, which is somewhat disappointing. Instead of stating "you have no source for this, so this should not be there. I will delete it if you don't have any evidence," explain why Japanese government never said "terra nullius" as your beginning. Give me the proof for your arguement, and the proper conclusion. This could be a size of a paragraph and still would have stronger intensions than the one you are dragging right now. Honestly, if you follow what I say, there would be people witnessing you and help your way along to edit. However, this is not the case, just think about it.

Even if you find it logical, removing stuff out of the article without any agreement between editors is not logical in overall. I am disappointed that the comments did not help you solve the problem. Please, conclude your thoughts so that we can wrap the problem up.

Read this Editing policy--Jamesshin92 06:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And, which is the reliable site that can be verified Japanese mentions about terra null?　Please present the site that can be verified according to Wiki's policy.--Opp2 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Be patient, I will try to look through for more reliable sites if I have time. I have a lot of things to do. This is what I got so far, [53], [54], Wiki's policy?

It was proven that Japanese Government did not refer terra nullius. Thank you!! [55]It turned out that the description concerning contradiction and terra null was a lie. It is necessary to delete the lie.--Opp2 07:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The South Korea government says in the letter February 10, 1954 as follows. [56]p39

Woosando and Ulneungdo the two islands are located … in the midst of the sea just in the eastern direction of this Prefecture …"(Shinjung Tongkuk Yoji Seungnam)

As quoted above, the two islands of Woosando and Mooneung(Ulneungdo) are different ones located in the sea just in the eastern direction of Oolchin Prefecture. And furthermore, there is also annotation that the two islands are apart from each other, but are not so far from each other that when the weather is fine, they are visible from each other.

A Chosun government interpreted the same record that Ullengdo had been seen from the peninsula on April 14, 1694.

Trees at the peak of Ulleung-do can be seen clearly from our land. The peaks and rivers twist and turn. Topographic features are very incapacious, there are dwelling site and native products. These things are written in yeoji seungnam and are transmitted for a long time.(Records of King Sukjong)[57]

This is contradiction that can be verified. I wish to express my gratitude to you because you proved the contradiction of the South Korea government. To repay your effort, I should add the contradiction of the Korea government to article. --Opp2 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised for the source that can be verified not to be presented yet. When and in what did Japanese Government publish the insistence that Japan acquired Takeshima in 1905 because it was terra nullius? The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. Why is the description about terra nullius and Japanese contradiction that cannot be verified?　Because this description violates the guideline of wikipedia, I should delete it. --Opp2 04:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, I am getting tired of your cases and all these reasons for your proposals that are not even clear. I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is about and I don't get what you think is wrong with the article. Good friend100 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. My demand is simple one. When and in what did Japanese Government publish the insistence that Japan acquired Takeshima in 1905 because it was terra nullius? If this is not presented, it is not possible even to verify the statement of Japanese government. --Opp2 05:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, it is time for you to lay off the Japanese propaganda. It is an undisputed fact that Japan claimed the islets under the logically fallacious terra nullius doctrine in 1905, although it turns out now to be an inconvenient truth Japan is trying to hide. Google is your friend.

These are good sources that should be studied by other editors interested in the issue, and cited in this article, instead of filling this page with sophistry and outright lies.

It is not possible to verify the statement of Japanese Government with those reports. I am not demanding the report with low quality. Please present a specific reference concerning Japanese discription about terra nullius for verification. When and in what did Japanese Government publish the insistence that Japan acquired Takeshima in 1905 because it was terra nullius? --Opp2 05:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the lie of these reports about the effect of maps and critical date. Then, let's clarify another fabrication.

Stanford report say follows[58]

In November 1998, South Korea and Japan agreed to renew a 1965 treaty that set a provisional fishing zone around the islands. Under the agreement, fishing boats from Japan and South Korea were allowed to operate in each other’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones if they obtained permits, while fishing quotas and conditions for such operations were to be decided by the two countries every year. This agreement laid the foundation for a subsequent 2002 fisheries accord in which each state agreed to lower its catch quota in order to preserve depleting fish stocks around the islands. Despite this paper’s conclusion that South Korea has a better legal claim to Tokdo, the two states are unlikely to bring the issue before an international arbitrator.

Mary Velpel say follows[59]

The UNCLOS states that within 200 nautical miles of its shoreline, a state shall have control over an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Within this zone, the state can closely monitor the usage of its waters, and permit or forbid activity by other nationals as it sees fit. In the case of Japan and South Korea, their EEZs overlap in several places, most notably in the narrow Sea of Japan. Control of Tokto became increasingly important as a basis for extending the EEZ.
Since even in international law, physical possession of a territory is often a deciding factor, Korea appeared to have the upper hand.

Japanese Government is specifying the surrounding of Takeshima for own EEZ.[60] It can be said that Korea admitted the sovereignty of Japan because the surrounding of Takeshima is a cooperative management. However, EEZ doesn't become grounds concerning the territory for both countries.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ 1953)

The French Government contended that a Convention on fishery, concluded in 1839, although it did not settle the question of sovereignty, affected however that question. It is said that the groups in dispute were included in the common fishery zone created by the Convention. It is said also that the conclusion of this Convention precludes the Parties from relying on subsequent acts involving a manifestation of sovereignty. The Court was unable to accept these contentions because the Convention dealt with the waters only, and not the common user of the territory of the islets.

I do not know whether authors of these reports overlooked describe of INQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE or disregarded intentionally. These reports are still fabricated. The propaganda report of South Korea doesn't have reliability. --Opp2 07:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Verbal note of Japanese Government to Korean Government on July, 13, 1962 [61]p160

(8) The Korean Government asserts that the fact of Japan's incorporation of Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture by the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture provides a strong evidence that until 1905 Japan had not regarded Takeshima as part of its previous Views as well as herein, it is evident that Takeshima has been Japanese territory since olden times, and that, as is stated in (7) above, during the deliberation of the so-called "applications for the development of Matsushima" which took place more than 20 years prior to the public announcement of Shimane Prefecture, high officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made clear beyond dispute the fact of Japanese possession of Takeshima and considered that the Korean side could not conceivably dispute it.

The public announcement of Simane Prefecture following the cabinet decision is of a nature of reaffirming the Japanese intention to retain the possession of Takeshima as a modern state, of incorporating the island in the modern administrative structure of Japan and of giving publication to the incorporation. And, a series of events which followed the incorporation attest to Japan's exercise of sovereignty by means of effective occupation and management of Takeshima.

After this Jpanese verbal note , there was no specific rebuttal from the Korea government. Original sources of Japanese Government are denied that Takeshima was terra nullius till 1905. However, this article describe that“Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records,as well as a" terra nullius "Incorporation in 1905." In Wikipedia, is second source without the reference given to priority more than original source? When did Japanese government say that Takeshima had been terra nullius till 1905? I am surprised for the source that can be verified not to be presented yet. --Opp2 05:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, you should finish law school, then publish your thesis in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal, not fill up this page, where nobody's interested in your personal interpretations and sophistry. In the meanwhile, the statement that Japan relied on terra nullius, as directly backed up by the above citations, stays in this article.

Does not an academic journal know even critical date? Is it a joke? It is not a my interpretation but ICJ's. The mention of Japan cannot even be verified. The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources.--Opp2 21:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think you guys should sign your posts with (~~~~). Anyways, I want to compliment Opp2 for his tremendous efforts in pushing for what s/he thinks is right. I don't really feel like I can participate b/c I don't know what "terra nullus" means. But.... I'm going to outline the discussions so that it becomes clear to everyone on what we're missing or have left out. The arguments have gone everywhere.

(Opp2) Part about Ogasawara should be deleted b/c "JP contacting other countries when annexing foreign islands" has nothing to do with Dokdo. I'll answer this. First, that's original research; unless you have a scholarly article stating this, it's irrelevant. Also, even if we operate the discussion under the framework of original research, international laws should spill over from one case to another.
(Opp2) Only Ogasawara was effectively controlled & required contact

(Wikimachine) also Koreans weren't notified of the annexation of Dokdo until 1906; therefore, the Japanese didn't notify to Korea even when there should have been the necessity/obligation to do so, while they did to the British gov when there was a necessity. Let me add, JP contacted even the United States -doesn't this that show by how much JP respects international law.... but then JP broke it when dealing it w/ Korea.

It is also possible to quote a Japanese source in Wikipedeia.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

I can present not only Prof. Park(Korean) [62]but also Mr. Tsukamoto's thesis about Ogasawara and other cases, if you want. Prof. Park conclude his thesis as follows.

I compared Japanese occupation cases from the viewpoint of the territorial title. Accordingly, there is no special difference between Takeshima case and other cases. Therefore, I think that Japan should insist on title by occupation in 1905. (以上、領域権原という観点から、日本による島嶼先占の緒先例と竹島の先占の場合を検討・比較してみた。結論的に言って、他の島嶼の先占に比べ、竹島の先占に別に特異なところはなかった。したがって、日本としては竹島/独島に対する領域権原として先占を主張するのが妥当と思われる。P46) --Opp2 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you summarize the context of the article in which this prof is speaking? (what the rest of the article's talking about). I'm not sure what you're trying to answer. (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

P.S. Actually, isn't this contradicting your previous statement about how cases on Ogasawara, etc. islands were irrelevant to this article? (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

Ginnre might be fitter than I. Because you will be said that my English is poor or unbelievable my summation. He seems that Japanese can be read.--Opp2 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And then Opp2 gives specific examples to rebut the other side's arguments... but they are original research. They're irrelevant unless you give a scholarly article that is specific to giving the examples & relating them to this subject matter. Or it's WP:OR.

The thesis of South Korean's scholar of International Law has been presented. Korean will see only what they want to see. To begin with, what is the source of a present description about Ogasawara? The quotation source is not being written in the article. --Opp2 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If the source is not in the reference section, then the example should not be used. But that doesn't mean that you can justify your groundless claims needled from several interpretations of international laws either. (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

I am pointing out that present discription abou Ogasawara violates the policy of Wiki. And the judicial precedent is an interpretation of ICJ.--Opp2 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you give primary sources from the Korean palace (Joseon Dynasty) about its denial in relation to this individual who made some contract/agreement w/ Japanese gov, etc... That's original research. You can't use primary sources to advocate a controversial claim.

The Shimojo professor also is pointing out the contradiction of Korea. Korean will see only what they want to see. In Wikipedia, is second source without the reference given to priority more than original source?--Opp2 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is the contradiction?

Second source without reference??? You mean a claim without a reference? (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

I have already presented an original source. A Chosun government says like that and recorded. I only translated the Chinese writing into English.

備辺司回啓曰竹島即鬱陵島一名是我国地載於輿地勝覧日本亦所明知而前後送差請已書契措語未知其間情弊今乃以禁勿往来帰功於時島主顯有引咎之意朝家大体不必更責前事至於漂風(He is shaughran)愚民(He is foolish people), 設有所作為(He has the habit of telling a lie) 亦非朝家所知(Imperial Court doesn't know him) 倶非成送書契之事(The agreement has not been sent) 請以此言及館倭(Tell it to the Japanese branch office in Pusan) 允之。

There is a similar record also in Japan. (通航一覧:呈書の事に至りては、誠に其の妄作の罪ありHe is guilty of fabrication of the agreement.)--Opp2 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is common sense of International Law that the activity of the individual doesn't become grounds.

Inter national law by William E. Hall p128

In order that occupation shall be legally effected it necessary, either that person or persons appropriating territory shall be furnished with a general or specific authority to take possession of unappropriated lands on behalf of the state, or else that the occupation shall subsequently be ratified by the state.(syncopation)

But if an uncommissioned navigator takes possession of lands in the name of his sovereign, and then sails away without forming a settlement, the fact of possession has ceased, and a confirmation of his act only amounts to a bare assertion of intention to possess, which, being neither declared upon the spot nor supported by local acts, is of no legal value. A declaration by a commissioned officer that he takes possession of territory for his state is a state act which shows at least a momentary conjunction of fact and intention

LIGITAN AND SIPADAN by ICJ

The Court observes, however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority.

Public international law by Ian Brownlie P138

Acts by private persons purporting to appropriate territory for the state of which they are nationals may be ratified by state and will then constitute evidence of effective occupation in the ordinary way.

Japanese Government also is pointing it out in the official document.

Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on September 25, 1954

Whatever Ahn Yong Bok said or did, the speech or behavior alone of a private individual cannot be used at this date by Korean as the basis for claiming ownership of Takeshima.

You are the same as saying that 1.3*1.8=2.34 is an original research because it doesn't describe in the source. Please present the source assumed that the activity of the individual is effective in International Law.--Opp2 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And I guess the WP:OR spills over to the Korean side as well. Unless there's a scholarly article that is specific to the example of Osagawara islands, the example cannot be used. But... I see really nice references such as the research paper from Stanford University. So, the controversy on JP's annexation of the Dokdo Islets should stay, and only the examples substantiated by proper citations should remain. (Wikimachine 20:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC))

The thesis of Korean's scholar of International Law has been presented. A present description is the same as the opinion of this South Korea government.[63]--Opp2 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Seoul National University research paper, not a release from the SK's gov. (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

The letter to Japanese Government from the Korea government is reprinted in the research paper. The original is a book of the South Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Collection of material related to Dokto(1) Shuttle diplomacy documents(1952-1976):獨島関係資料集(１)　往復外交文書(1952-1976))--Opp2 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. It is secondary source. (Wikimachine 05:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Opp2, this news article shows that the islets are 'found' as new islets in 1905. Doesn't that mean it is terra nullius? [64]. Please comment on this. Ginnre 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But it is written only that Takeshima was incorporated in Shimane prefecture. And it do not write "found", "new islets" and "terra nullius". Terra nullius is "無主地", "found" is "発見" and "new" is "新" in kanji character.(Please install a Japanese font in your browser)--Opp2 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you read Japanese, so I qoute the originals [65]; Japanese incorporation in 1905 has this title; 無人島の所属に関する件 so it says there lives nobody. In the text, it says 他国に於て之を占領したりと認むべき形跡無く so it says other countries don't ocupy the islets. These two consists of saying that Japanese incorporation in 1905 is based on her 無主地 argument. Would you interpret them in a different way than terra nullius? In the context it is based on terra nullius. As you know that 他国に於て之を占領したりと認むべき形跡無く was fatally wrong as the Korea Empire incorporated them in 1900. By the way, this 1905 incorporation has been an important argument of Japan. Why would you deny this terra nullius so strongly?

All this tedius argumenents with international laws have been repeated many times in this discussion. Please take a look at the archives. Every time it went nowhere as these arguments were rather about the forms, not about the contents. It is simply because you cannot deny that Korea also has substantial and long ties to the islets. Therefore, from a bigger perspective, even if you may argue this and that against what I have said, it is not a clear cut for your argument to be valid and convinced by a larger international community. Again, it is not a matter of forms, but of contents. I don't think Japan will provoke with this problem so severely that it hurts its international image as this claim reminds people of imperialistic old Japan unavoidingly, however she argues it was not. Ginnre 05:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still a lot of islands not occupied in the South Korea territory. Do you think that those islands are terra nullius? Terra nullius means land where any country doesn't have the title. It is not land not occupied. A mere occupation act and occupation proprement dite(title by occupation) are different. The object of occupation proprement dite should be terra nullius. However, the object of the occupation act may not be terra nullius. Conveniently, the Kanji character is different in Japanese.

mere occupation act:"占領"or"占有"
occupation proprement dite(acquisition of terra nullius):"先占"

Original souce is here[66]. Please look for the character of "先占" or "無主地". Let's keep your eye open for an accurate interpretation. --Opp2 10:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, 先占 is usually used when a land has NO owner, nor was known by people. The main problem with Dokdo is that Japan, in its greed to take over Korea, disregarded 大韓帝國 (Korean Empire)'s claim of Dokdo, which was reproclaimed in 1900. The biggest problem of Japan's arguements is that even if the ownership of Dokdo wasn't solved in the 1700's and such, 大韓帝國 has, in effort, already "先占" Dokdo before Japan claimed it as its territory in 1905.

By the way, I'm at the hospital because of surgery, so it may tack awhile to respond to you. --General Tiger

Do not change the topic. The current topic is whether Japan said "先占" or "無主地". --Opp2 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, "先占 is usually used when a land has NO owner ahead" is a lie. This explanation is terra nullius("無主地"）.

"先占":One nation occupy terra nullius earlier than another country with the will to own. (koujien:famous general dictionary in Japan.)--Opp2 12:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the use of "先占" is different in Korea and Japan. But, that doesn't mean you can say "It's a lie." I demand your apology.

Also, even if "先占":One nation occupy terra nullius earlier than another country with the will to own, then Japan wrongfully took Dokdo from 大韓帝國, which had terra nullius by proclaiming it its territory. Also, if you're going to base it on weither there was people on it, then Japan never fully excerised its "terra nullius" when Korea "occupied" the island in the 1950's. --General Tiger

You seemed not to have told a lie, and to be only ignorant. I'm sorry. The Chinese character is a ideogram. ”先（선）”means "antecedence" and "占(점)" means "occupation". This is the same also in Japan, Korea, and China. It does not have a meaning of "land has NO owner." "선점" means "preoccupancy" also in Korea. The current topic is whether Japan said "先占" or "無主地". The Korea empire is unrelated. If you want to do the argument about the Korea empire, it is necessary to delete the description concerning the contradiction of Japan from the article or to present a verifiability and reliable source of Japanese announcement.--Opp2 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, If you want to discuss about International Law, you should read the judicial precedent and the book about International Law (Book on general International Law that doesn't specialize in Takeshima). Poor stanford's report is useless.--Opp2 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, and I have to say that most of your arguments are just twists of loopholes that hides the reasons why Japan doesn't have a strong claim to the islands. --General Tiger

It is a loop. The reason is that the verifiability and reliable source concerning the reference of terra null by Japanese government is not presented. My demand is very easy. When and in what did Japanese government say that " Japan claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a terra nullius incorporation in 1905." This answer needs only a little word. However, no one answers. Only an irrelevant topic like this your comment returns.--Opp2 08:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, as I wrote in your talk page, your attitude is becoming more and more problematic. You need to read at least this link [67] to be level-headed or to have some opinion on that before you proceed any of your argument. If not, you don't need to scramble to argue this and that more as your saying is exactly same as what Japanese government says and it has been repeated many times in this talk page. Again, I don't have any intention to argue with you about your too much detailed denying of 'terra nullius' as it doesn't change the whole picture in context. Ginnre 05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My demand is one. When and in what did Japan government say "先占" or "無主地" about Shimane incorporation in 1905. You are not satisfying the demand at all. I do not understand what you want to do at all. Please do in other subparts if you want to argue about other topics. --Opp2 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My demand based on policy of Wikipedia is very simple and easy. It is being written "Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a terra nullius incorporation in 1905." in a present article. When and in what did Japan say that? The format of the answer is as follows. Extra information is unnecessary. I verify it based on these three information.

1.DATE:(ex.December 26, 2006)

2.METHOD:(ex.letter to the South Korea government)

3.PUBLISHER:(ex.Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources.--Opp2 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.In official Japanese announcements mentioned below, it has been confirmed that Japan doesn't claim the terra nullius(無主地) and occupation proprement dite(先占) about Shimane incorporation.

Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on July 13, 1953
Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on February 10, 1954
Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on September 20, 1956
Letter from Japanese Government to South Korea government on January 7, 1962
Official site of Japanese Government[68]--Opp2 09:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I answer my question because it is waste of time. Japan didn't say terra nullius and occupation proprement dite. "terra nullius incorporation in 1905" is Korea POV. It is true that the Korea government distorted the Japanese letter at July 13, 1953. And, contradiction was created based on this distortion. I admit the Korea government to have been interpreted that it is contradiction. However, this is Korea POV. Look at a present article. Is it understood that it is Korea POV? It is being written like the fact. Therefore, I propose the following corrections for NPOV.
<Preface Part>

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

This is Korea POV. Because it is an insistence of Japan, it shoud be Japan POV.

amended bill

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records and reconfirmation by incorporation to Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

<The Joseon and Edo Period Part>

This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

Modern Korea POV need not be written here. It is necessary to delete it.

<Other Maps and records Part>

During the Russo-Japanese War and increasing Japanese influence over Korea, Takeshima was proclaimed a part of Shimane prefecture in Japan under the doctrine of terra nullius (although this presumption is no longer mentioned in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs following the release of Korean Imperial Ordinance 41) on January 28, 1905.
(In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)

The same Korea POV insistence need not be reiterated. It is necessary to describe the Korean interpretation clearly, and to settle in one place. And, it is necessary to insert the insistence of Japan almost the same volume of Korean insistence.

amended bill

During the Russo-Japanese War and increasing Japanese influence over Korea, Takeshima was proclaimed and incorporated a part of Shimane prefecture in Japan on January 28, 1905.

Korea say that this incorporation is occupation proprement dite of the terra nullius and it contradicts the Japanese insistance which Takeshima has been Japanese territory since 1618.

However Japan say that this incorporation is of a nature of reaffirming the Japanese intention to retain the possession of Takeshima and exercise of sovereignty as a modern state.

The correction of my English rolls out the red carpet because my English is poor.--Opp2 12:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I retouches it if there is no positive and NPOV rebuttal.--Opp2 14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Section

Here's how we should settle this matter.

The KPOV side has already given references specifically talking about the contradiction that Japan made concerning Takeshima... but the ref for the example about Ogasawara (correct spel?) island hasn't been given. That means that unless KPOV side can find an article that specifically relates Japanese government's actions for the O island to the contradiction for the Takeshima island, the example cannot used (although the statement stays).

What is the source about Japanese contradiction? I have not been looking yet. Please show me. When did Japan say terra nullius.--Opp2 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2 has to give at least 1 article that states that and gives reasons why in regards to terra nullus, the Japanese gov's means were legitimate. (Wikimachine 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

No, I didn't say that. "in regards to terra nullus,..." And, sorry, not "contradiction". Just "illegitimacy". "Contradiction" doesn't fit unless there's a scholarly article that specifically supports it. (Wikimachine 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

What is illegitimacy of Japan? Is it a notification obligation? For me, refarences of KPOV side that has already been presented are uncertain. Because it is not your subject, I stop it about this.--Opp2 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, notification obligation. And this is not really my area of expertise, but I can go as far as drawing a line between original research and properly referenced defense. Furthermore, I already said that the Osagawara example should be deleted if it is not properly sourced. (Wikimachine 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikimacine, I commend you for trying to broker a compromise. I have been watching the talk page for about a month, but have been hesitant to reply to anything. I don't claim to be an expert, so I can't say I understand the cruix of the debate 100%, but I have a good idea what is going on.

My feeling is that no matter what you try or say or do, Opp2 won't accept what your offering. Some of this could be due to a language barrier (I know this from teaching English as a second language for three years). The other part has to do directly with trying to insist that Dokdo belongs to Japan. What your suggesting is certainly a good option, I'm just saying don't be suprised if it doesn't work. Davidpdx 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I am not supporting the insistence of Japanese Government about the EEZ problem of Japan-China and terrytory problem of Japan-Russia. I am not Japan POV but International Law POV and original source POV. The activity of the individual doesn't become evidence. It doesn't become evidence since critical date. These are basic of International Law. It is necessary to disregard even these basic of International Law to insist the Korea territory. I am not good at English. However, I know original sources(old record of japan and chosun about Takeshima) and International Law than you. Some of this could be due to a language barrier. Because you cannot read old records of Japan and Chosun. You know only the interpretation and translation by Korea POV about these records. And You should remember International Law was a colony acquisition rule by powers. The justification rule of the Asia and Africa invasion by America and European countries. --Opp2 07:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no thesis to which a logical reason to extract only Ogasawara case is written as long as I know. After all, Ogasawara's relation will return in the notification obligation of international law. Because Ogasawara case is used by the context concerning the notification obligation in Korea POV thesis.--Opp2 09:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the dust

Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

The Japanese first referred to this island as Dokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ulleungdo to investigate the area in preparation for the building of a watchtower on Dokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads (translated into English):

The Liancourt Rocks are called Dokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo (Seok-do) since 1900 by the promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.

Original text is follows(Japanese)

午前十一時釜山港沖ニテ沖繩丸ト別本艦ハ速力カヲ增加シテ午後三時竹敷港ニ歸着シ鹿ケ小島ノ北北西三/四二鐽三/四ニ投錨ス。午後五時沖繩丸入港ス。石炭搭載.第十二艦隊佐度國丸出航。十八艦隊入港ス。松島ニ於テリアニコルド岩實見者ヨリ聽取リタル情報。リアンコル岩韓人之ヲ獨島ト書シ本邦漁夫等略シテリヤンコ島ト略稱セリ。別紙圖ノ如ク二個岩嶼ヨリ成リ。西嶼高サ約四百呎險沮ニシテ登攀ルコト困難ナルモ東嶼較低クテ雜草ヲ生シ頂上稍稍平坦ノ地アリ。二三小舍ヲ建設スルニ足ルト云フ。

The bold part is concoction.It doesn't exist in the original. --Opp2 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see the original link or image you have. Who knows the quoted part is the entire one? Ginnre 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's present the source of a present description before you demand me. Who knows the present description is correct? You should study "appeal to ignorance (probatio diabolica)" and Wikipedia's Policy. I am interested in the source of this fabrication. What is the poor source? --Opp2 06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also reprinted here[69]. Google is your friend.--Opp2 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Because this is clear fabrication, I erase it. --Opp2 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say simply it is a fabrication. It may be negligence or ignorance. It looks like that you're so confident that every favorable description to Korea is written by Korean and they're viscious. How fun! Anyway, the context is historically correct because of the incorporation of Dokdo by the Korean Empire in 1900. Actually your link showed a good reference that showed the response of the Korean government to that report [70]. So I rewrote the part accordingly including the response of the Korean Empire. Ginnre 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabrication is fabrication. Retouching is admitted if based on the fact. However, do not confuse the insistence with the record. And, do not conceal the recognition of the Korea empire from Ullengdo as 100 ri(40km). I will also add the record that The Korean is calling Takeshima yanko in 1903.--Opp2 10:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't repeat what you said, but show me why you think it is fabrication. Is there any evidence? Ginnre 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sentence was retouched again. Do not mix the Korea POV insistence with the record. --Opp2 11:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As you said, in the report it says Koreans wrote the islets 獨島. That in turn means the Japanese knew that Koreans call the islets 獨島. Where is the insistence you are talking about? Ginnre 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it is true that the Korea empire incorporated 石島 in 1900. However, it is a Korean insistence that makes this 石島獨島. I think that you cannot distinguish the fact(record) and the hypothesis( insistence).--Opp2 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is enough explanation that 石島 in 1905 incorporation is 獨島. It is your ignorance or, at best, what Japan insists (that the 石島 is not 獨島). Ginnre 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know Takeshima is not recognized by the investigation in 1900? Do you know that the Imperial Ordinance 41 is based on this investigation report? Can the island where it doesn't know existence be incorporated? Do you know the Ullengdo resident was pronouncing the 石 not DOK but DOL? Is yanko in 1903 a dialect? Do you understand that it is only a similarity of the dialect that was proven? Is there a case which is the Chinese character changes from the 石 into 獨 by the dialect? Do you know that the dialect theory is a hypothesis generated after the WW2? Do you notice there is no confrontive evidence? Do you know specific evidence is demanded in International Law?--Opp2 06:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In International Law, 石島 become uncertain. However I think the generic name of the rocks in the vicinity of Ullngdo. The reason is that Chosun knows there are a lot of rocks by the investigation in 1882[71]. In South Korea, there is no search record assumed that Takeshima is an island composed of the stones and rocks. There is even no specific record that recognized Takeshima after the 18th century. Naturally, there is not the government official's landing record either. The island that the nation doesn't know cannot be incorporated. --Opp2 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

about Chosen Hachido-no Zu
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

Chosen Hachido-no Zu (1758) depicts Ulleung-do and Dokdo as one big island within Korean territory, according to Korean scholars. Some Japanese scholars believe the map only shows Ulleung-do as a territory of Usan-guk (state).

I think this map[72]. Where is it being written Dokdo? It is being written Ullengdo(鬱陵島) & Usan-state(于山国) & Iso-take(イソタケ) in this map. What is the gallooty Korean scholar's name? Can the Korean scholar read the Chinese character?--Opp2 05:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
amended bill

Chosen Hachido-no Zu (1758) depicts Ulleung-do and Usan-guk(state) on one big island within Korean territory. Korean scholars insist that Dokdo is comparised in this one island. Japanese insiste that only Ullengdo is drawn in this map.

Is the South Korean scholar really doing such a foolish insistence? --Opp2 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) I wait for the constructive opinion until January 13. --Opp2 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

about Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do (1861), an incomplete map of Korea, includes Dokdo, according to Korean scholars.

The detailed data of this map is here[73].Only Ullengdo is drawn.
amended bill

Dae Dong Yeo Ji Do (1861) depicts one island. Korean scholars insist that Dokdo is comparised in this island. Japanese insiste that only Ullengdo is drawn in this map.

I wait for the constructive opinion until January 18. --Opp2 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

about Historical Geography of Great Japan
Part of "Other Maps and records" in the article describe follows

Historical Geography of Great Japan (大日本地名辞書, Dai Nippon Chimei Jisho?), 1900) records that when the local government of Shimane prefecture asked the Japanese Meiji government whether Dokdo would be merged into Shimane, the government in 1877 responded that Japan had no relation with the islets.

This content is the Japanese Dajokan (Council of State) issue in 1877. Historical Geography of Great Japan is unrelated to this description. Because the Japanese Dajokan (Council of State) issue has already been described, this should be deleted. I wait for the constructive opinion until January 18.--Opp2 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

竹島?! Bamboo Island?!

Tell me if I'm wrong here. The Japanese government calls the Korean Dokdo (독도/獨島) as 'Takeshima (죽도/竹島)'. Now, if the first Chinese character for both 獨島 (Dokdo) and 竹島 (Takeshima) are scrutinised, most people of Korean, Chinese and Japanese origins (or anyone with a fair knowledge of Hanja) will recognise that the character 竹 corresponds to the English word of bamboo (As Naver Hanja Dictionary puts it, 대나무를 나타냄) and 獨, this time using a Chinese Character Search website found on, as Opp2 puts it, our friend Google, as lone or independence (as in 獨立). But that's not my point... Now if all the average John Citizens and Jane Citizens out there were given this information they would obviously think, if something has the character "bamboo" stuck in front of it, it will, at least, contain, well... bamboos. Last time I looked at photos and drawings of Lonesome Island (or what the Japanese government calls 'Bamboo Island'), I did not see one bamboo. Not one. Do you all, especially Opp2, get my point? It's called common sense. How dare you call other Wikipedia editors ignorant and stupid? --DandanxD 11:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, have a great new year. --DandanxD 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not common sense but a illusion. Japan called Takeshima Matsushima(松島）in Edo period.[74] Matsu(松) means pine. Can you see the pine at the Takeshima's picture? In Japan, 松竹梅 is used looks like phonetic code in English. You may image that 松 means ALFA, 竹 means BRAVO and 梅 means CHARLIE. It is a very facile name. There are a lot of Takeshima without bamboo in Japan. For instance, in only Oki archipelago there are one Takeshima and four Matsushima. It is natural that the foreigner doesn't know this. However, if it doesn't know these, an impartial judgment cannot be done for the Takeshima problem. This your comment is an archetypal example. Do you think that Usando is Takeshima though saw these Chosun maps?[75] It's called common sense. To begin with, the name of the island is unrelated to territorial title of International Law. It is not a British territory though clipperton island is a name applied by a British pirate. --Opp2 14:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a name of the island, but importance is the incorporated island of being in 131degrees 55minutes of east longitude and 37 degrees 9 minutes 30 seconds of north latitude. This position is written in the cabinet decision in 1905. International Law demands specific unquestioned evidence like this. It is useless in the pun by the dialect without even the change case with the Chinese character. Did you understand the reason why South Korea refuses ICJ?--Opp2 15:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Korea refuses to bring the case to the international law court because it has a weaker position than Japan. And I have the impression that there is a Japanese judge on the court or has that changed? Good friend100 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe the evasion by South Korea government? It is an insult to International Court of Justice and Charter of the United Nations. There is even a case where the United States was defeated by Nicaragua at ICJ. The judge of the South Korea nationality can be added. It is also possible to specify only the judge whom the two countries approve looks like Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area Case(Canada/US). It is certain that the position of South Korea is weak. It is however because there is not the judge but no evidence. --Opp2 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, even though it's irrelevant, that I would think Korea wouldn't want to take this to court because they don't have anything to gain by doing so... they've already constructed structures on the islet, control it, and whatnot. By going to court, Japan has everything to gain and nothing to lose, per se, if you look at the circumstances as they are. Oncamera 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So Dokdo is Japanese since its Cabinet Members decided to invad Dokdo in 1905? How stupid and ignorant can one get?

Do not misinterpret my remark looks like Japanese terra nullius description. There is a possibility that the effective control from Edo period is not taken as indirect presumption. There is a possibility to be judged that another one island of 1877 is Takeshima, too. In these cases, it will become occupation proprement dite in 1905. There is a possibility that long-term effective controll from Edo period is reversely admitted same as eastern greenland case, too. Because the Japanese fisherman's activity permits from the shogunate, and is unquestioned it is present Takeshima[76]. However, title without the specific evidence is not admitted. France at that time was making the geography details of the island even for the judicial precedent of Clipperton which has a lot of criticisms. Moreover, the name of Clipperton is described in the chart of Britain, and was widespread in the world. 石島 which is uncertain the position and shape, and only in the presumption from the pun is impossible. It can be said that Korea Empir even secretly incorporated 石島 because any country doesn't understand which island 石島 is. The territory in South Korea cannot be stolen. However, the territory no whose can be acquired. Because Takeshima cannot be proven to be a territory in Korea by specific evidences, it is not possible to invade from Korea.

The specific evidence of peaceful effective control exists in Japan, and it doesn't exist in South Korea if it says in International Law. After the war, Japan did not abandon Takeshima. This is all. --Opp2 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, I want to ask you specifically what you want. All I have seen you do are make efforts to disprove the "Koreans" in this talk page and nothing in the article itself. I don't care if your english is bad just answer my question instead of rambling on with some case. Do you want the title of this article to be Takeshima? Do you want a section in the article that proves that Japan is the rightful owner of Dokdo? This talk page is really for editing and improving the article. Good friend100 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

? It is published that Japan insists the Korea insistence on the same condition. Fabrication and the misinterpretation should be deleted. This is my purpose. Naturally, the insistence based on International Law is added as an insistence of Japan. Do you think this is same condition?[77]

Blue character(2,825 words):Insistence of Korea and KoreaPOV interpretation
Red character(500 words):Insistence of Japan and JapanPOV interpretation

In addition, an inconvenient record for South Korea is concealed. About the title I think that Liancourt Rocks is neutrality.--Opp2 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you don't have to space him out. He wants to correct all KPOVs. (Wikimachine 22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Am I such a thing remark?　I say that I will leave even Japanese terra nullius contradiction as Korea POV. It is the same for Ogasawara. I insisted whether both insistences were published or deleted. Did I tell KOREA POV to delete everything? I am only telling it to make the insistence of Japan and Korea the same condition. Is it inconvenient for you that it is the same condition? --Opp2 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"He wants to correct all KPOVs" means that you Opp2 wants corrected all controversial statements that are only stated from Korean point of view. There's nothing behind what I said. (Wikimachine 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Is it true? It is my mistake. I am sorry. --Opp2 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Opp2. It's your English, right? (Wikimachine 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

Missing information

Hi! I know I'm new to this whole article, but I feel there's a key element missing. The article as it is now doesn't really give a sense of the level of passion Koreans have for the Dokdo debate. I've lived in both countries, and though of course there are some Japanese who are very enthusiastic about the issue, in Korea it borders on a national obsession. The article really should note how inextricably linked Dokdo is with Korean nationalism. Examples are definitely not hard to come by. Ben Applegate 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, feel free to edit this article. I myself have considered what you think might be a good topic to put on the article but the section will eventually be modified or deleted by editors who think its just another "Korean POV". If you write a section on the topic of Korean nationalism to Dokdo, I think it is a good idea but it'll have to be carefully written.

FYI...Korean nationalism really comes from the geopolitics of the region and how Korea is stuck between economic and political giants. Also, it comes froms the frequent invasions Korea has suffered because of China and Japan (Goguryeo-Sui Wars, [[Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598), etc etc). Good friend100 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that your proposal is suitable for this topic. Takashima is used by politician who want to shift the focus away from domestic issue, mass media which want to have a high audience rating and addlebrained scholar who want the authority in Korea. The unquestioning people believe blindly thir government and mass media.[78] You should read 玄大松's book if you can read Japanese. Title of the book is "territory nationalism(領土ナショナリズム)". The author is Korean and an assistant professor of international politics at The University of Tokyo now. It is a very interesting research. However, this book will not be able to be published in Korea for their nationalism. Korean nationalism is a reason why Korea cannot solve this problem by the law and the rule. In International Law, nationalism doesn't become grounds. Excessive nationalism brings a big side effect same as Japan of prewar days. Korea government will stew in her own juice.--Opp2 03:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Free speech is not permitted in South Korea. The person who had done this contribution[79] received walking papers from the university in South Korea[80]. He was being recommended by the president of his UNIV that Takeshima's contribution was stopped for about one month ago. And, he was stopping contributing according to the recommendation. I think you should report such blinkered nationalism. --Opp2 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with free speech, though. It's administrative pressure. (Wikimachine 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

First of all, I agree it has nothing to do with free speech. If there was a dispute between someone doing research and a university, then say so. There's no need to bash Korea (as you often do). Second of all, Japanese nationalism is just as rampant as in Korea. I could list several examples of it. There is a diffrence between arguing the facts and nation bashing. You are doing the latter of the two. Davidpdx 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to punish an unlawful act by administration of justice. However, he received pressure about his hobby from the university. His hobby is quite unrelated to his business and legality. I gave information along Ben's interest. How this is judged is left to Ben.--Opp2 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Complement:He doesn't use the name of the university in his contribution. Even his university name is uncertain. Some net users searched out the university from his name. And, a lot of protest mail was sent to the university. This is the beginning of this incident. --Opp2 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Free speech is not permitted in South Korea. Are you kidding me? Or are you comparing the democracy of Korea to the ugly Communism in China? Do you know what you are talking about? Good friend100 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, please spare a little time to define what freedom of speech is for this poor young person :). In your definition of "free speech," we, in the United States, don't have that also. For example, if anyone from academia speaks badly about Jewish people or Israel, the University he or she is in will get pressured to dismiss that person from ADL. If we go to Western Europe, it is more severe because lots of professors and faulties are in jail for saying "there is no such thing as holocaust" outside of the school. In conclusion, every nation has taboos and there are consequencse for breaking that. Every nation has taboos itself, and in Korea, that taboo is just Dokdo, and in the western hemisphere, it is just Israel and Jewish people. I also think you are just looking for reasons to bash a nation. And besides, you think Japan has "complete" freedom of speech? Well, if it did, my family would be in Okinawa right now rather than New York. 66.108.252.91 00:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Also in Japan, a specific group looks like Korean people group and village that originates in anciently position ware taboo. But, their protection changes into pieces of the action recently, and social issues. There might be a taboo concerning human rights, the race, and the religion all over the world. Is Takeshima taboo? It is terrytory problem. This will be a decipherment of the history material and be a matter concerning International Law. Takeshima is not problem of religion but a logical problem. Abnormal and egoistic nationalism of Korea makes a logical problem taboo. However, this is the reason that the Korean's insistence concerning Takeshima is certainly like cult. Even a normal verification of the thesis cannot be done in Korea. Therefore, there are a lot of fabrication theses in Korea. It is also natural not to be able to do a specific discussion in Wikipedia. Korean believes in the propaganda thesis blindly.

free speach

right to express uncensored opinions: the right to express any opinion publicly(encarta dictionary)
the right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored(wikitionary)
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government(The American Heritage)
speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law)
the right to express an opinion freely(Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)--Opp2 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning holocaust, even a normal verifications of the thesis cannot be done in western Europe because you get thrown into jail :) 216.165.24.113 17:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In your sense, is the problem of Holocaust the same as the problem of Takeshima? Do you do as well as the problem on humanity? I can not understand your sense. You have made a mistake in the use of the metaphor. Are Oder and the Neisse line taboo in Poland and Germany? For your information, there is a Japanese scholar who insists that the position of the usando in this Korean map of 1899[81] is almost accurate correspond to the position of Takeshima. He is a professor at Kyoto University in Japan. I do not know his eyesight.--Opp2 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. You are the one who started all these "Freedom of Speech" battle. Merumerume 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It became a story on Korean Times. I think that it is a very good report because it devotes to the description of the fact relevance and both parties' complaints are written. I think that there was a risk that the reporter is bashed from the Korean society. She is a sincere journalist.[82] ]--Opp2 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

about Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-7

Some editors keep referring to that blog of Geary Bevers [83]. He says the Korean Government is a big liar and there is not a single map before 1905 that shows Dokdo is Korean territory. However, his blog just faithly follows what Japanese goverment insists and is almost the same as Tanaka's website [84], even some images are the same. His limited knowledge about Korean reference on Dokdo is miserable and he does not accept any single argument from Korean side. You may well get to know Japan's position regarding Dokdo from his blog, but that's all. That does not mean that Korean lie about the islets or there's lack of evidence that the islets belong to Korea from old days. He is obviously ignorant of the maps that show Dokdo belongs to Korea before 1905. For example, see the Japanese map in this article [85]. Ginnre 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In his Brog, the verification of the recognition of Chosun and Korea is a subject. Does the map of Japan relate why? Cannot you understand even the subject?--Opp2 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't avoid the point. You don't get what I say. I'll say again. Read carefully. Korean interpretation is of course different from his and the interpretation is, on its own, very credible. It is his limited knowledge that in the end he just faithfully represents Japanese interpretation and totally ignores Korean one. That does not justify what he claims on his blog. He's just showing what Japan says about the maps. That's all. By the way, why don't you tell me your opinion about the map I showed to you? Ginnre 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't avoid the point of his blog. MOLVO and DOKDO MUSEUM and STANFORD REPORT become improper if going by your logic. He cannot read Japanese. Original source and the site in South Korea are his main sources. Is it a reason that I did not answer? Because it is avoided the point of his blog and foolishness.[86] --Opp2 12:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, his description of Korean history record is translated from Korean site. [87] Therefore, it is an interpretation of Korea POV. --Opp2 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the English translation of the Korean history book about Takeshima, his Brog might be a the greatest. It is very useful even only this point. Do you know the English translation site more than his blog?--Opp2 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

His theme is recognition of Chosun concerning Ullengdo and Usando. Therefore, main sources are Chosun's records. Are the map and the recognition of Japan related to his insistence? What did you want to say from the japanese map?--Opp2 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. He's native Australian, so he is too good at english. As he works an English instructor in Korea, it looks like he has some Knowledge about Korean and the society. However, his blog is based on his insistences and reasoning for them based on the documents and maps. It is here that his limited knowledge led his reasoning to what Japan is insisting. For exmaple, his reasoning regarding Seok-do in 1900 incorporation of the Korean empire with current Juk-do is just ridiculous. For some uncertain reason he is over confident that Korean government is lying and his interpretation is accordingly and faithfully in favor of Japan. That's all. It's true that he's good at english, but his interpretations are largely deficient. Furthermore, he omitted some other documents that's more obivous about Usando relating Dokdo. For exmaple, he didn't mention about 'Mangi yoram', which says that Usando is what Japanese call Matsuchima. It is well known that current Dokdo was called Matsushima by Japanese before 1905. Ginnre 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not Australian. Perhaps, you are misunderstanding it with another man. Is he insisting that 石島 in 1900 is Jukdo? He is not doing such an insistence. What is on earth ridiculous? Only the name of 石島 is in the record now. Therefore, we can do nothing but presume from indirect evidence. This is the reason that there are a lot of hypotheses. My insistence is different from his insistence. However, his insistence is admitted as one hypotheses because there are no clear grounds to deny(=grounds to prove which island 石島 is). The Dokdo theory is also the same. It is a problem of the possibility judgment, and the subjectivity enters this. This shows no admission in International Law as evidence. But you said a ridiculous insistence. Do you have a secret record that can deny all hypotheses? Was new specific evidence to show 石島's position found?

Did you read thorugh his blog at all? He is an Austalian [88] and he talked about Seok-Do in the middle of this posting [89]. And as you said, there are many hypotheses. My point is that his hypotheses are based on deficient assumption or reasoning of his own, lacking of knowledge on Korean and Korean history, and at best in line of what Japan says. That's all about his blog. Ginnre 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He is a manager of the sight. It is a form that the reporters contribute to the manager's(Australian) site. This is a mistake because of your inaccurate information interpretation.

You wrote that he was interpreting Seokto as Jukdo. And, you made it grounds of his ignorance. Is he insisting Jukdo? His insistence is not jukdo but gwaneumdo. This shows that your criticism is not accurate.　What knowledge of Korea is insufficient in him? Neither of the evidence that you presented is adequate. You are not presenting a concrete, appropriate evidence to deny his insistence. However, you criticize one-sidedly. This proves your the lack of concreteness and logic. --Opp2 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the semblant and the position of Usando being written in 'Mangi yoram'? Japanese Matsushima that a Chosun government recognized will conform to Usando in these maps[90]. Because Chosun was recognizing that Matsushima was a Japanese alias of Usando. Even if the Japanese name is known, it doesn't become proof that a Chosun government had acquired the Japanese geographic information. Ahn brought information of Matsushima to a Chosun government. However, there was no geographic information. Therefore, a Chosun government misunderstood JUKDO(Usando) with Japanese Matsushima. After all, it is a record of the geography by Chosun government that proves geographic recognition of Chosun. It is a mistake to apply the geography recognition of Japan only from the name, and this is a deception method too.

Your link is kind of funny. Since when are those old maps so accurate? Did they check other islands around Korea on their accuracy in the distances? They are not modern maps, man. In your writing, you just deny every single Korean reasoning or argument. That's all you do but that does not mean you're right. Ginnre 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the island moves? The geography hardly changes in now and old times. Therefore, the old map was effective in the judicial precedent of PALMAS as the evidence of the geography recognition. These maps show that USANDO is geographically JUKDO. Especially the map of 1899 is fatal in the insistence of South Korea because that is an official map. To begin with, you have the presentation responsibility of grounds that deny his insistence. This shows that this remark of you is not logical. --Opp2 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your insistence, concreteness, accuracy, and logic are always insufficient. --Opp2 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is personal attack and has nothing to do with this discussion. You deserve another stronger Warning in your talk page and shows your attitude is more and more not acceptable. You're in bad faith. Ginnre 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, let's object accurately, concretely and logicaly. What you should do is a presentation of the Chosun's concrete and accurate material about geography recognition of Chosun to deny his insistence.--Opp2 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the only material by Korea that showed range of Korean territory in figure befor 1905[91]. It was written by the historian in Korea in 1899. The boundary in the east of Korea is being written 130°30" east. Takeshima is in the east from this border. Is there such concrete evidence which describe the position of 石島?--Opp2 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This shows your lack of historical background. At that time, Korean had no idea about western altitudes and latitudes and that kind of western idea came most entirely from Japan. When some books written in Korean introduced those kind of things, they were just translations from mostly Japanese Books. So your link shows what Japan said at that time. Ginnre 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I knows such a thing. It is writing in his book. His recognition was the same as the geography recognition of Japan because he wrote according to Japanese geography recognition. Your insistence is not a rebuttal. You deny inconvenient evidences because Chosun and Korean is no accurate knowledge about own terrytory. It is the same as saying that there is no accurate evidence in Korea and no evidence to deny his insistence. You dug your own grave. --Opp2 04:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"That does not mean that Korean lie about the islets or there's lack of evidence that the islets belong to Korea from old days. He is obviously ignorant of the maps that show Dokdo belongs to Korea before 1905. For example, see the Japanese map in this article"

This your claim is not only you but also a typical insistence of Korean and the deception method. Why is the record of Japan used for the recognition of Korea? At that time, did the Korea government obtain this Japanese map? Was there a negotiation in Japan-Korea about this map? The reason why the record of Japan is used is that there is no substantial evidence concerning Takeshima in Korea. Therefore, it is necessary to take pains with the Korea POV interpretation of the Japanese record thought that doesn't become evidence in International law. This is reason that the Korean scholar of International Law aspire to discover the substantial evidences previous from 1905.[92] However it is the same as the proof of there is no evidence in Korea now. --Opp2 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be heated and hasten to conclude that I'm deceiving. Your editing gets problematic. Do you think I'm deceiving??? I just showed one example from many maps that showed current Dokdo belongs to Korea because Gerry's blog insists that there is not a single one map that shows that. Ginnre 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the record of Japan related to the recognition of Chosun? If Chosun knew this Japanese map, information of the Japanese map is corresponding to the recognition of Chosun. That is, it becomes the evidence of the recognition of Chosun. Did Chosun at that time know the Japanese map? Why do not you answer this important thing? Please explain logically. It is deception method because there is no logic.--Opp2 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show the many Usando maps which ware made by Chosun to prove the geographic recognition of Chosun.[93] [94][95]It is not a Japanese map.--Opp2 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As you said, there are many hypotheses and they can be the current Dokdo and that's what Korean scholars claim. Ginnre 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You did an inaccurate, non-logical quotation because this my description is not about Usando but Seokdo. Usando is a subject now. You agreed to the my description concerning Seokdo. I think you also agreed to this my description which is "there are no clear grounds to deny(=grounds to prove which island 石島 is)". This is my grounds that take the Korean insistence about Seokdo as a hypothesis. This also means that the insistence of South Korea doesn't become grounds of International Law and there are not grounds that deny Geary's insistence about Seokdo either. You dug your own grave.--Opp2 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

BLOGS CANNOT BE USED AS A SITE OF REFERENCE. IT IS WITHIN ALL WIKIPEDIANS' RIGHTS TO DELETE ANY BLOG-BASED REFS. (Wikimachine 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Then, his permission is obtained, and I will quote it on the internet site. It will become the same condition as Mark S. Lovmo. --Opp2 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely horrified by what's going on. You can NEVER use a blog entry for an encyclopedia. Never. It doesn't matter what the terms on the permission, copyright, etc. might be. You simply cannot use a blog for reference. (Wikimachine 04:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Then, his permission is obtained, and I will compose again for the site. It becomes the same condition as Mark S. Lovmo by this. --Opp2 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with obtaining permission. It is against Wikipedia's policy to use blogs as references. (Wikimachine 05:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Therefore, his Home page is made. That is not blog and a quotation of Brog either. Do you understand?--Opp2 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. Could you provide link to his site here? (Wikimachine 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Making is the future. First of all, I must contact to him. It is uncertain when the site will be accomplished. I think the insistence to will become the almost same with his Brog. The labor will become useless if it will be opposed when completing it. I want to confirm to you. Can it use as the external links if it is the usual Home page　form.--Opp2 05:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's completely unacceptable. What, trying to set up a website just to post the same info from a blog? Being a info-driven website does not automatically make it more legitimate. This is probably one of the most cheap shots I've ever seen at a discussion. How is this possible? You can't create a separate website containing all of your stances & then use it as a source -that's just like sockpuppeteering! (Wikimachine 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

He is a publisher and author. I only help him for making html. However, he should accept my proposal.--Opp2 06:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would call it a POV website, especially since someone who is editing this article (Opp2) is the one who wants to engineer the change of that blog into a website just so it might be used as a reference. You can't just make a website and then use it as a source because you need to change the article to whatever your POV is. A conflict of interests would arise. And after looking at that blog, the comments on it makes it seem like Japanese propaganda Oncamera 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure he fully understand, but if this is a blog or even a homepage, it might not be suitable as a source. Davidpdx 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If your logic is applied, the report of Stanford which doesn't know even critical date will be disqualified.--Opp2 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's from Stanford - the word "Stanford" a lone makes it legitimate. (Wikimachine 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

What about Mark S. Lovmo? There are a lot of mistake also in his site. --Opp2 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the mistakes that appear in Mark S. Lovmo's site. Looks fine. (Wikimachine 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

I do not hear a concrete rebuttal about Gerry's insistence. And, I have pointed out the quotation of the fabrication thesis in Mark's site.--Opp2 09:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It believes only by the name of Stanford even if the quality of the content is low. Is the author Korean? Is he a student? The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. Does "reliable" mean name of the university?--Opp2 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiability" is already construed to the word "Stanford". A university research paper is published & read by other scholars. A university that publishes poorly written, POV works will not be seen as a good university. The fact that Stanford is one of the world's 10 best universities makes it legitimate. (Wikimachine 06:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Has the verification been entrusted to Stanford in Wikipedia? I am very surprised. Is it reliable though the author doesn't know critical data? If you confirm "critical date" to your friend of the law school, you might be good. It is published in the textbook of usual International Law. --Opp2 07:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the author, Sean Fern, seems credible, as in, he knows what his subject is: http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/contributors.pdf . He studies International Law among other things. Oncamera 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

credible???? I am very surprised. Is it credible though the author doesn't know critical date? Recently, even the Korean scholars of International Law indirectly admit that Korea doesnot have evidences. [96] [97]--Opp2 08:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, the author of that blog is an Australian national who worked as an English tutor in Korea. I believe he was cut because of his unbased views on Dokdo last year and his hatred for Korean society. --DandanxD 15:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

investigation by niitakago in 1904

Ginnre says that he will not like the deletion of this description(Bold type part).

The Japanese first referred to this island as Dokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ulleungdo to investigate the area in preparation for the building of a watchtower on Dokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads (translated into English):

The Liancourt Rocks are called Dokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo (Seok-do) since 1900 by the promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.

The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. I demand the source of this description to him based on this policy. He will immediately present it because he seems to be confident of this description. I am waiting with expectation.--Opp2 07:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that I didn't like the deletion. What I asked you was to show me the original link your quotation is from. I couldn't find the whole report so I could not tell whether you can keep the bold part in the english translation or not in the context. Indeed there is no such thing in your quotation. It merely says that Koreans wrote the islets 'Dokdo'. If the original document contains no more than that about the name 'Dokdo', it is fine to me to delete the bold part as you requested. Ginnre 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You should study "appeal to ignorance (probatio diabolica)[98] and wikipededia policy" It is your obligation that proves existence. It is my service that I presented the original text. In addition, your retouching sentence was complete KOREA POV. The record and the insistence must separate.--Opp2 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't repeat the same thing. There was no opinion. Based on the paragraph you presented, I just wrote the fact that the Japanese were already aware of Korean name of 'Dokdo' for the islets. Where is any POV here??? And why is your service is limited to that short paragraph, rather than the whole report? Ginnre 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You overgeneralize by Korea POV. Not JAPANSE but Niitakago. You operated the impression as the entire Japan had known. Actually, there is no record assumed that Japanese Government knew the logbook. It is not recorded that "aware of the fact". This impresses that neme of Dokdo is widespread to the Korea government and Korean. That is, it is impressed that 石島 in 1900 is Dokdo. Actually, it is the first record of the name of Dokdo. It is not proven that the Korea government also wrote like that though it is a fact among Korean fishermen whom a Niitakago heard. The record of first Dokdo by Korea government is after Japan is notified in 1906. It is a report from the government official of Ullengdo to a central government. I think that the government official of Ullengdo learnt the name of Dokdo for the first time by the hearing to the fisherman after the notification of Japan. The generalization by your KOREA POV excludes all these possibilities. Is there an inconvenience for you if description stick within the record?

Do you complain to the service of good intentions? I omitted it because it was not significant. Was there significant information into my abbreviation? You complain though you cannot do anything for yourself.--Opp2 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I said the Japanese, not all Japanese. I meant the Japanese in the ship. At least they knew. They wrote 'Korean wrote the islet Dokdo' becuase they knew it. What's wrong??? Do you deny that they knew the fact and fabricated the report??? Ginnre 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The range of "Japanese" is too wide. I do not hear your inner thought. It is a problem what a general person who read your description thinks. Who does they of " they knew the fact indicate"? Fact is only what the crew of NIITAKA knew that private Korean write takesshima as Dokdo. Is this understood from your description? And please don't sent your message. I like discussion open. --Opp2 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does that record read 'private'? That's your assumption. If you mean messages the warnings I put on your talk page, that shows your problematic attitude or editions here. It has nothing to do with open discussion. I didn't discuss on your talk page. If you want no more warnings, behave yourself accordingly. Ginnre 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my mistake. The uncertainty is accurate. You seem not to want to accept the point of the fact. --Opp2 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless

This is the most racist load of bullshit I've ever seen. You people are bitching over the name of a rock. Your nationalist and overtly racist sympathies are so overwhelming that you can't even reach verdict on what to call it. You all deserve to be ashamed of yourselves. Jboyler 22:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion is filled with a lot of racism, both on Japanese and Korean side. I am, too, sick and tired of both parties constantly fighting. What people are doing right now is not a "discussion."Merumerume 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point that the discussion is pointless. I'd say some people need to take a Wikibreak from this article rather then continue to beat the drum of their own countries nationalism. Both Korea and Japan are guilty of doing this as well as many of the people who are discussing this article on this talk page. I'm sure they will deny having any POV, but that is just about impossible.

Sometimes it is better to walk away from an article for a week or two and gain a fresh perspective. The other concern is that some people's English is so poor that it is hard to understand their arguements. I understand English is their second language (and I understand from the perspective of being an ESL teacker), but you can't have a worthy conversation when A) The person arguing can't construct sentences that make sense and B) When the person makes the same circular arguement over and over again.

This is just free advice. It would be a shame to see two or three people turn this into a war of words on the talk page or an edit war in terms of the article. Davidpdx 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Davidpdx, it is becoming very hard to interpret what some people are trying to say. I can't effectively respond to them. Good friend100 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And Jboyler, you are taking it to a even higher level of insult by adding some provocative words. Good friend100 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodfriend, I agree with you on the issue of insults in terms of your response to the other person. It's hard to not feel frustrated though watching this page and seeing what is going on, so I can relate somewhat. It's also bizzare that certain people have disappeared during this portion of the conversation. We'll see if that continues to be true. Davidpdx 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who was supporting an either insistence hard agrees to your comment. This is a very strange and interesting. And, your comment doesn't show a reasonable solution. Your comment will be misused by the person who wants to maintain title named Dokdo. --Opp2 02:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See, this is an example, Opp2, I don't understand why a comment needs to show a "reasonable solution." And why does a comment need to show a reasonable solution? Good friend100 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, why did he comment? He only abused as if he was like neutrality. He is only doing the same thing with the nationalists who are defined by him. He should deserve to be ashamed of himself.--Opp2 04:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion about the terra nullius

A proper citation has not been given, although the request is about three weeks old now. Therefore, it was most proper to delete the section, as per Opp2's request. (Wikimachine 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, good call. Davidpdx 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that this comment was a positive one. ;| (Wikimachine 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, it was meant that way. Davidpdx 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of a proper citation?--Opp2 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V. Origonal research is can not be a primary source, neither can a blog. Davidpdx 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the info about terra nullius should be kept b/c there's citation! (Wikimachine 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

I have presented the thesis of the Korean scholar who admits Japanese insist. You do not want only to admit. --Opp2 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the move and can you please archive sections of this discussion? It's becoming harder to read Opp2's comedic posts. --DandanxD 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Making Edits Against Consensus

It seems like Opp2 has his mind set on changing this article whether or not anyone agrees with him or not. This just isn't thw way things are done around here. If you want to argue about a specific section then do so. If your trying to argue that the name should be changed back to Takeshima (which is what I feel you are doing) then do it straight forward rather then talking in circles.

Opp2 you have made several blunders by attacking other edits as well as making slander statements against Korea and Koreans. If you want people to work with you, then my advice is to change the method in which you are doing things. Again, free advice. So far you don't seem to listen to my line of reasoning. Things could get tougher or easier, but it's your call. Davidpdx 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Opp2 cannot make edits just because there have been no replies for 2 weeks. From my perspective, it seems that Opp2 makes the same arguments over & over, or phrase them in nonsensical wordings & other users simply find it hard to engage in the discussion. (Wikimachine 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Then, please answer without changing the subject. My demand based on policy of Wikipedia is very simple and easy. When and in what did Japan say terra nullius? The format of the answer is as follows. Extra information is unnecessary. I verify it based on these three informations.

1.DATE:(ex.December 26, 2006)

2.METHOD:(ex.letter to the South Korea government)

3.PUBLISHER:(ex.Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

There is no clear answer to this question up to now. Please answer my question without changing the subject if you do not want to repeat.--Opp2 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) If it is material that Japanese Government overseas announced,It is possible even by the Japanese material written, "先占" and "無主地". --Opp2 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk without changing subject, then. Simply, your 3-level buildup of evidence is original research. This is what you figured out from the 3 evidences. You need an article that denies the usage of "terra nulius" on Japan's part. On the other hand, the info about "terra nullius" cannot be used in this article unless there are evidence supporting the claim. (Wikimachine 06:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Here's the evidence about Japan claiming terra nullius: [99]. The Japanese assert that they had incorporated Dokdo, an island that they considered to be a terra nullius, into the Japanese Empire on February 22, 1905 when the Govenor of Shimane prefecture proclaimed the islets to be under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands branch office of the Shimane prefectural government under the name "Takeshima", cited in Shimane prefectural proclamation number 40 of that year. (Wikimachine 06:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

The site doesn't write his primary source about terra nullius. The relevant guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are verifiability and reliable sources. I cannot verify that.

Types of source material

Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable.

Self-published sources as secondary sources.

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.

Is the secondary source that even a primary source doesn't write reliable? What did the Mark S. Lovmo interpret? In addition, his site cannot be used as a secondary source. If you examine the description about terra nullius of Mark S. Lovmo, you will reach one Korean thesis at last. And, you will feel disappointment. --Opp2 07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have not insisted here yet. I only confirmed the source. The your comment about original search is not a subject now. You changed the subject. --Opp2 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The thesis should describe the source clearly for verification. The thesis without the source is rejected. Is this common sense? Wikipedia demands the source that can be verified too. --Opp2 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody at Wikipedia needs to answer Opp's questions, which is why nobody's bothering to read his pointless lectures. This is not the place for us to do original research. There is a list above of many links to published sources that state that Japan used terra nullius. Any or all of them should be linked as citations to the terra nullius statements. The statements should not be deleted based on original research. Wikiment 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) I stopped reading or caring about Opp's lectures when I saw this list of citations above. These are proper citations that can go into the article, not Opp's original research.

   * http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
   * http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
   * http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html
   * http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/26/
   * http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1-cms1530.pdf
   * http://ncta.osu.edu/06/cols/mucha-japan.pdf
   * http://menic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__338/Takeshima.pdf.
   * http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsil/annual_documents/2003/autumn/houkoku-abstr/Panel%20D4%20Lee%20paper.pdf
   * http://www.cowac.org/icjstudyguide2002.html Wikiment 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical pattern to change the subject. My demand is a concrete source about terra nullius. I am not demanding the sutra. Where of these sutras is it written?--Opp2 07:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have eased the condition. My demand based on policy of Wikipedia is very simple and easy. When and in what did Japan say terra nullius? The format of the answer is as follows. If it is material that Japanese Government overseas announced,It is possible even by the Japanese material written, "先占" and "無主地". Extra information is unnecessary. I allow the second source which write these information. I verify it based on these three information.

1.DATE:(ex.December 26, 2006)

2.METHOD:(ex.letter to the South Korea government)

3.PUBLISHER:(ex.Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

There is no clear answer to this question up to now. Please answer my question without changing the subject if you do not want to repeat.I am only demanding the source that can be verified according to Wikipedia's policy. My insistence is not written still here. It is not original search. --Opp2 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)--

Opp, you should write the Japanese government for this information, and publish your thesis in a journal. Wikipedia is not the place. In Wikipedia, we cite secondary sources. If the links above say Japan used terra nullius (and they do, just search each link for "terra nullius"), that's the end of this discussion. If the New York Times says Congress passed a tax bill, Wikipedia says Congress passed a tax bill, citing the Times. Nobody here needs to respond to a "demand" for who introduced the bill, how many voted for it, bill number, or whatever. If you are curious, you go to Congressional records yourself. If you find that the New York Times was wrong, write the New York Times for a correction, or call CNN with your scoop. After the Times prints a correction, or CNN does a story contradicting the Times, then Wikipedia can cite the Times or CNN. Wikipedia is not the place for your research. Wikiment 09:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical pattern to change the subject. I am only demanding the source about terra nullius that can be verified according to Wikipedia's policy.--Opp2 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a typical pattern to change the subject. In Wikipedia, we ONLY accept secondary and tertiary sources. See WP:OR. (Wikimachine 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

This thesis is interesting.[100]

At the international judicial fora, however, this specter called colonialist international law is often resurrected and given full effect or vindicated by the ICJ and international arbitral tribunals.

This is essence of International Law. However the armed clash will increase more if the present standard of this International Law is destroyed. Legal stability will be ruined. After all, this author(Korean) can do nothing but complain because his hope is not fulfilled.--Opp2 05:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is crazy

This talk page is becoming a place for pointless discussions and unintelligable, uninterpretable stuff is posted all over here. I am TIRED of this. I am going to go AWAY for a while. Good friend100 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maps and ambiguous maps

The Japanese argument is based wholly on misinterpreting ancient Chosun maps and ambiguous maps made by Korean cartographers.

The fact is NO Japanese maps or documents prior to the contested military annexation of Dokdo prove ownership of Dokdo. In fact almost all Japanese maps of the Sea of Japan fail to show either Ulleungdo or Dokdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html

Even prefecture maps of Shimane fail to show Ulleungdo and Dokdo prior to the Japanese stealing it in 1905.http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html

Korea of course contested the Japanese annexation of Dokdo. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

And Korea was an occupied country prior to the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion by the Japan-Korea Protocol signed on February 23 1904 about a year before the Japanese incorporated Dokdo for the purpose of installing military facities at the height of the Russo~Japanese War.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-historical-perspective.html

Of course some Japanese documents show the Meiji Government considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo part of Chosun. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html

And both Korean and Japanese historical documents quote clearly Usando is Matsushima (Dokdo) and part of Korea. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html

Japanse contradiction and terra nullius theory

Only an individual poor site is presented for himself as a source. However, the demand for others seems to be severe. I assemble insistences of the scholars of International Law because I was demanded. Please endure though my English is poor.

Insistence of Japanese Government

The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

Insistences of Japanese scholars of International Law

Prof. Matsusumi(Hachiman Univ ronsyu p107-108, 1962)

If it was not terra nullius but a territory in Japan from long ago, the requirement for the territory acquisition (title by occupation: annotation by Matsusumi) by modern International Law did not have to be filled. Incorporation into Shimane Prefecture might be evidence that Japanese Government admitted Takeshima as terra nullius.(無主の土地でなく日本古来の領土の一部であるという立場に立つ限り、日本政府は第二の点であるところの「近代国際法により必要とされる領土取得の（先占）要件を国家行為を以て充足する」必要はなかった筈である。にも拘わらず1905年（明治38年）2月22日....竹島の領土編入の意志を殊更に島根県告示を以て公示したのは日本政府自身当時竹島を「無主の土地」と認めていた証拠であろう。)

Prof. Minagawa(Kokusai hougaku no syomondai p363, 1963)

Acient title was acquired by Japan's discovering in the 17th century, and using it exclusively realistically. This title was replaced for firm title by the incorporation in 1905.(日本はすぐに[sic.]十七世紀はじめ竹島を発見し、それを現実的専用の対象とすることによって原始的権原を有していたのであり、それは1905年同島の正式な領土編入により確定的権原に代替された.....)

Prof. Daijyudo(Kokusaiho gaiko zashi p143, March 1963 and Ryodokisokuno kokusaiho p143, 1998 )

The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards are enough to change title thought that Japan effectively acquired in accordance with International Law in the 17th century for the modern title.(日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。)

Prof. Serita (Nihon no Ryodo p153, 2002)

Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the occupation title of terra nullius. Japan insist that if it treats as a Japanese territory at that time and another country doesn't object to it, it is enough to acquisition because International Law doesn't apply before opening the country to the world.(日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。)

Outline of thesis by Prof. Park (Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi 2006)[101]

The insistence on two territorial titles (historical title, title by occupation) like Japan seems like contradiction. In this thesis, the insistence of Japan is examined. That is, Japan should select one title or two titles can be united. And I examine which title is appropriate if Japan selects one title.

Contradiction theory of historical title and occupation title

The author classified the insistence of a Japanese scholar and Japanese Government as follows.

Title by occupation theory (Prof. Matsusumi's thesis in 1962, Prof. Minagawa's thesis in 1963)
Historical title theory (Japanese Government, Prof. Daijyudo's thesis in 1966)

However, the insistence of Japanese Government is assumed to be a coexisting theory. Prof. Park is not judging whether Daijyudo’s thesis is a contradiction theory or a coexisting theory to be clear.

Coexisting theory of historical title and title by occupation

The insistence of Japanese Government is thought to be a coexisting theory. Daijyudo’s thesis is thought to be a coexisting theory. International Law did not request the reconfirmation of the will to own territory against the country which had become the member of the international society on the way. However, International Law is not prohibiting it. It is logically possible to strengthen her title by additional action same as title by occupation. A logically possible thing and actual execution are other questions. Therefore, Japanese title by occupation cases should be verified.

Analysis of Japanese title by occupation cases

The Japanese process of title by occupation is as follows. Geographic knowledge is acquired first. Secondarily, the ownership of the island is confirmed. Finally, if the occupation by another country is not confirmed, it is incorporated. However, the civilian's activity might be earlier than the acquisition of geographic knowledge by government. It is only two cases that Japan notified in seven cases. The relation to Senkaku Islands in the Sino-Japanese War is paid to attention in Korea.

Comparison with Takeshima's incorporation

There is no big difference between Takeshima's incorporation and other Japanse title by occupation cases. In Takeshima's incorporation, the governmental intention of reinforced Japanese historical title is not felt. Japanese coexisting theory is likely not to approve as a substance act though the theory is logically possible.

Summary

Japan should insist on title by occupation about Takeshima because there is no difference with other title by occupation cases. However, Japanese government will not do it. Korea should present the historical evidences when Japan insists on historical title. Korea should prove that Takeshima is not terra nullius before 1905 when Japan insists on title by occupation. After all, it is likely to have to be based on modern International Law like title by occupation or the effective control title, etc. It is difficult to find the standard of the historical title in East Asia at that time.

When the opinion of Prof. Pak and Prof. Serita's opinion are added to Prof. Pak's classification, it is as follows.

It is contradiction, and Japan should select title by occupation.

Prof. Matusumi, (Prof. Minagawa), (Prof. DAijyudo)

Japan should select title by occupation though it is not contradiction.

Prof. Park

There is no problem in a present Japanese insistence.

Japanese government, (Prof. DAijyudo), Prof. Serizawa

():Interpretation by Prof. Park.

Even the person who doesn't know International Law will understand by there are various interpretations. There are neither an established theory nor a judicial precedent about the application of International Law to the country before International Law is received. There is not a decided form to succeed to from history title to title of International Law either. Therefore, a lot of theories exist. It is only Prof. Matsusumi to conclude title by occupation of terra nullius.
The description of a present article is as follows.

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

The source of this description that has been presented up to now is as follows.

1.DATE: When Mark S. Lovmo’s up-loaded to his sigt

2.METHOD: Mark S. Lovmo’s sigt

3.PUBLISHER: Mark S. Lovmo(Mark S. Lovmo thinks so.)

Apparently, Mark S. Lovmo seems to represent of Japan. He can decide Japanese insist. It is ridiculous. Reliability and the verification of the source are judged by man who doesn't know International Law. A present article is a tower in the castle in the air composed of a tinpot source. --Opp2 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is excellent! Why didn't you give the sources from those authors before? (Maybe I didn't catch on) Then, you can write a counter-argument on why it might not be a contradiction. However, you cannot delete the reasoning present in the current state of the article on how the terra nullius matter might be a contradiction. (Wikimachine 05:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

By the way, when you properly list those citations, remember to give page numbers. (Wikimachine 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

The reason is that it takes time for my English ability. Moreover, it arrives at a thesis of the Korean scholar who fabricates the notification obligation if the source of a present description is traced. In my persistent demand of the source, this is a reason. I insist after doing an enough investigation. Does it describe clearly to begin with, "Japanese claim", and why is given to priority to the second Korea POV source over the announcement of Japanese Government?--Opp2 06:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy states that we provide both arguments - whether you think a Korean scholar's argument is bad or not does not matter. The announcement of the Japanese government is a WP:OR. (Wikimachine 06:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

This paints a picture of your NPOV policy[102].

1. Blue character(2,825 words):Insistence of Korea and KoreaPOV interpretation

2. Red character(500 words):Insistence of Japan and JapanPOV interpretation

In addition, an inconvenient record for Korea is concealed. The result is eloquent. Naturally, if this description is maintained, the edit wars are generated.--Opp2 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is concealed? Specify. It seems to me that anything that favors Korea looks "concealed" to you. (Wikimachine 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Contradiction and terra nullius are one hypotheses. The conclusion and the emphasis that it is contradiction are KOREA POV.
<Preface Part>

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

Because it is Japanese claim, it shoud be Japan POV.
amended bill

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records and a reconmfirmation of Japanese intention to possess by incorporation to the Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

Modern Korea POV need not be written here. It is necessary to delete it.

During the Russo-Japanese War and increasing Japanese influence over Korea, Takeshima was proclaimed a part of Shimane prefecture in Japan under the doctrine of terra nullius (although this presumption is no longer mentioned in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs following the release of Korean Imperial Ordinance 41) on January 28, 1905.
(In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.)

The same Mark S. Lovmo's personal insistence need not be reiterated. It is necessary to describe that this is Korean claim clearly, and to settle in one place. And, it is necessary to insert the insistence of Japanese claim almost the same volume of Korean insistence.
amended bill

During the Russo-Japanese War and increasing Japanese influence over Korea, Japan proclaimed and incorporated Takeshima as a part of Shimane prefecture in Japan on January 28, 1905. Korean scholars say that this incorporation is occupation proprement dite of the terra nullius and conflicts with the Japanese contention that Takeshima had been Japanese territory since 1618. However, Japanese scholars say that this incorporation is of the nature of reaffirming the Japanese intention to retain the possession of Takeshima as a modern state and that they are not contradictory under International Law.(second edition)

I will correct if there is no oppose based on concrete and logocal grounds until January 22.--Opp2 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't set deadlines, Wikipedia's always open to change. You want to be admin someday, right? All these things will show up on your records & you'd get voted down on your Rfa.

Currently, the issue settles in KPOV b/c JPOV hasn't been written yet to counter & make NPOV (no ref until now). So, you can add JPOV now w/ your references (including page numbers), and change the section so that neither side ends up having the conclusion. (Wikimachine 23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Are the texts that you've typed below each of the references the actual ones word-by-word? If not, I can't really do this for you because I haven't read those. You'll have to rewrite the section on your own. (Wikimachine 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

I added original texts. Because you are quoting a Korean site, you will be able to read Korean. You will be able to use the automatic translation site. The translation from Japanese to Korean is comparatively accurate. I think that the opinion of an individual scholar doesn't have the necessity. It is enough there are Korean and Japanese scholars who supported that the insistence of Japanese Government is not contradiction. You believe Mark S. Lovmo's insistence that even his source name doesn't write. It is strange.--Opp2 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

History is a collection of different theses and theories articulated by different scholars. Of course, this is just one of them. A reference does not have to be from a government or a large organization for it to be trusted. (Wikimachine 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Well it is way better written than any other contributions of yours, Opp2. Now I got your point. So I'd like to point out somethings.

If you insist that the term 'terra nullius' is problematic because there are many other theories, I think we can come to a consensus to modify the opening paragraph and the text appropriately. However, I don't think you can use the word 'reconfirmation' as you suggested because it is as controversial as 'terra nullius'. From your writing, all we know up to now is

There are many theories about terra nullius.

In 1905 Shimane prefacture incorporated the islets.

There are records about the islets in Japan from the 17th century.

We may just write, for example,

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records and Japanese intention to possess by incorporation to the Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

And I don't see why your conclusion comes to "It is enough there are Korean and Japanese scholars who supported that the insistence of Japanese Government is not contradiction." I just see that there are many theories among the scholars in Japan. (By the way Prof. Park studied and has been a professor in Japan before he became professor in Korea, so I don't think the fact that he is Korean matters here. He just knows well about Japanese internatinoal law community and published a paper about this problem.). Who does so as you said for Japanese government?

The difference between government and scholars is "replace" or "reinforce" or "reaffirm". These try to explain the insistence of Japanese Government without contradiction. But this difference is not so important because the method and term of the switch from historical title to title by International law is not established. If the term of Japanese Government is unpleasant, let's make it to "Replace".

Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records and replacement Japanese territorial title under International Law by incorporation to the Shimane Prefecture in 1905.

However, it becomes a little technical description, and the balance with the description of Korea is bad. --Opp2 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the description on the Korean side is not so specific, mentioning only records dating back to 6th sentury and 1900 incorporation. In line with this, I suggested the same structure for the Japanese description, records dating back to 17th century and 1905 incorporation. Using more technical terms as you suggested, the opening paragraph gets too technical, which would not be well read. Those technical terms and discussion about international law can be presented later in detail. Ginnre 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, as Goodfriend100 said below, WP is not a court and we are neither a prosecuter nor a lawyer. Articles like this controversial one just introduce what both parties say about the object. That's all. We don't need to cling to international law to add something in or delete something from this article. Ginnre 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The accurate appraisal cannot be done if there is no knowledge of International Law in the territorial issue. Is there an opinion of Other Maps and records Part?--Opp2 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On terra nullius, I don't know what to do because a japantoday.com article says that the Japanese government claims terra nullius.[103] (Wikimachine 04:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Because the article has been expired, I can not confirm. Do you say about the contribution of ID named chucky3176? --Opp2 05:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another cite. [104] (Wikimachine 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

It was not a claim of Japanese Government but it is an insistence of the Prof. Shimojo. Prof. Shimojo was insisting that the other one island of 1877 was Takeshima. Therefore, Takeshima was insisted as terra nullius at 1905. And, he was insisting that Japanese Government had to change her insistence. However, Mr. Shimojo changed his idea recently[105]. He changed his opinion to other one island is Ullengdo. In addition, he is not a scholar of International Law.--Opp2 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So what if he was not a scholar of IL? I clearly saw that the japantoday.com article stated that the Japanese government took Takeshima under terra nullius. "The Japanese claim to have incorporated Liancourt – land they considered to be terra nullius – into Shimane Prefecture on February 22, 1905." [106] (I hope that this doesn't expire). (Wikimachine 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I have introduced the thesis of the scholar of International Law who squeezed the point under discussion to terra nullius. What examination does the report of the Stanford do?　His hope is only being written.And, the low degree of the quality of the report has been pointed out. [107]And, it is described clearly that it is "Insistence of Japan". It should not be an insistence of Japan misinterpreted by Korea POV never. Japan decides Japan claim. --Opp2 08:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All these above seem meaningless.

Let's see how Wikipedia operates. You don't question the validity of a secondary/tertiary source. Who gave you, a single individual, the right to determine whether or not a source is Korean POV & KPOV is bad? You don't like Korean scholars? Too bad and sad too. Because here in Wikipedia, we love all scholars. We take all POVs and present them under NPOV. I can't help disliking someone for specifically rejecting a reference just because it's from a Korean scholar.

You and Korean do not have the authority to decide Japananse insist. I have already presented the source that verifies terra nulliusu. You do not want only to believe. The source that you presented doesn't verify it for terra nullius. --Opp2 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second, yours is from a thesis of a single scholar. I can imagine a single scholar advocating a new position (takeover was not terra nullius) separate from that of the government, but a newspaper (japantoday.com) or a Stanford research paper just state the facts as they are in the status quo.

I have already presented the Japanese scholar's interpretation. It is only one person that concluded Terra nullius.Does the thesis that you quoted execute the examination of terra nullius? It doesn't examine it.Any grounds are not shown, and their convictions. --Opp2 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a random scholar, why don't you try to find the stance that the Japanese government is taking at the government's website? (Wikimachine 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't understand what you want to say.--Opp2 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What examination did Sean Fern do about terra nullius? He is not doing anything. He is not presenting grounds at all. Only his hope was described. As for the thesis of Park, the verification process on International Law is being written. Park verifies the insistence of the Japanese scholars and Japanese Government. There is no reasonable reason to give priority to Sean Fern not verified more than Park that verifies. Thank you.--Opp2 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was "terra nullius" before 1905 is necessary to verify as follows.

When the country is closed, is International Law applied?
What is the succession rule from historical title to title of International Law?

At present, the second source that verifies these matters is not presented except the thesis of Park and Japanese scholar's theses that I presented. --Opp2 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

rv, grammatically, my edit is more sound

When Dokdo is under S. Korea's jurisdiction, Dokdo, S. Korea does not have to dispute its own claim. However, Japan has to because Dokdo's not Japanese territory. So, Japan has to dispute the claim. I don't see where that would go POV. Maybe it translates into offensive tone in Japanese? In English, it's perfectly fine. (Wikimachine 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

The accomplished fact making develops into the armed clash. Do you want to destroy legal stability of the world? The sovereignty exercise in which another country protests becomes invalid in International Law. Therefore, the fact of the protest of Japan becomes more important than the sovereignty exercise by South Korea in Inter national law. This is not Japan POV but International Law POV.

"given title during the Japanese Occupation": "Dokdo(given the Korean official title in 1906)." What do you think about this description?--Opp2 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo's not Japanese territory:What is your definition of this "Territory"? Title? Sovereignty? It means the region where TITLE has been fixed usually in international law.--Opp2 03:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"When Dokdo is under S. Korea's jurisdiction, Dokdo, S. Korea does not have to dispute its own claim." this your description is same meaning　as Korean governmant.

ex."It is Japan who conjures up a quasi territorial dispute where none should exist." "Japan is attempting to place herself on the equal footing, evenprovisionally, with Korea in relation to the so-called Dokdo territorial dispute, thus establishing quasi claims for Japan where were none at the compromise of the complete and indisputable territorial rights of Korea over Dokdo."(Letter from South Korea government to Japanese Government at October 28, 1954)

However you said also that "A reference does not have to be from a government or a large organization for it to be trusted." You are double criterion.--Opp2 11:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

International Law POV? Could you please point to us where you read this? --DandanxD 16:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In "with or without dispute against Korean sovereignty exercise", South Korea is not a subject but an object. Countries other than South Korea are subjects. For instance, United States suddenly occupies one island in Polynesia. The country occupied naturally protests. However, if the United States says, "There is no dispute", does it become an American territory? It becomes such the world order. It is a revival of title by conquest. Similarly, the sovereignty exercise of Japan to Senkaku island after 1971 becomes invalid, too. --Opp2 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this similar with Falkland Islands? Argentina protests it, but what does the British government do? They just BS it. 216.165.24.113 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know details of the history of Falkland and insistence of the two countries. I hear that Argentina protested in 1833. However, the title by conquest was lawful in International Law before World War I though the present sovereignty exercise by Britain might be invalid. The interesting one is that the permanent member (victorious country) shows the tendency to try to evade ICJ and International law though they established ICJ. Korea occupied Takeshima after ww2. It is malignant further in international law. --Opp2 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a thesis of Van Dyke as a source that verifies the Korean interpretation of "No Dispute"[108]. He said follows(p22-p23).

Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.

It seems that his "obligation of peaceful resolve" indicate Charter of the United Nations Article 33. He doubtful about Korean claim from the viewpoint of peace. Therefore it is necessary to emphasize that the present Korean sovereignty execution is bulled.
proposed revision

Dokdo is a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Korea currently bulldozes their administration acts, in spite of Japan protest (where they are known as Takeshima). --Opp2 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was gone for a while, but, Opp2, you really have this hysteria or something about everything between Japan & Korea. I was going to do a top-bottom clean of that terra nullius thing & sweep away grammar & fluency at the same time. Why not kill two birds with one stone? But, I'm not going to accomplish anything because of your presence here.

I don't know how in the world international law, etc. should apply to Wikipedia in terms of grammar & manner of writing - it seems to me that you're very confident in your English, although your user page says the contrary... Wikipedia is used by average people. It's not used by people who study international law. What about that?

(Wikimachine 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

It is not an English problem. YYou tried to limit the range of dispute and make it to the problem only of Japan. ”Dokdo is a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). Korea currently bulldozes their administration acts, in spite of Japan protest (where they are known as Takeshima).” This is an expression that man of a usual average also understands and it is accurate as the content.(It does not mean that an English grammar is accurate) An inaccurate content is not the same as a simple expression. Moreover, you used the double criterion(Your correction based on Korean government claim). --Opp2 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "bulldozes" would confuse people and it sounds too flowery/POV. I thought what edits wikimachine had made were a big improvement in tone and grammar. Maybe you didn't understand what the changes actually meant in English, Opp2? on camera 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous edition had a lot of words in passive tense and be form, which are considered as poor English. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place to make a change, it's a place to reflect on what rest of the world thinks. Dokdo is part of Korea & Korea does not have to dispute its own claims. (Wikimachine 01:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

You tried to minimize "dispute". If your comment of the first of this part is seen, your intention is clear. You tried to make the standpoint of South Korea advantageous based on the insistence of the South Korea government with the correction of the grammar. And, your double criterion is clear. --Opp2 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Description based on thesis of Van Dyke.

Dokdo(Japanese are known as Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). In spite of Japan protests, Dokdo is currently one-sidedly administarated by South Korea. This adamantly Korean claim has the possibility of nonobservance the the peaceful resolution obligation of Charter of the United Nations Article 33.

This is accurate as the description of the current state.--Opp2 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you're trying to say that this guy called Van Dyke is saying whatever you said about international law. Uh... no. (Wikimachine 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Then, the peaceful resolution obligation will be added in other parts. What about this description. Because the interpretation of "Dipute" was different, it was assumed the description only of the fact.

Dokdo(Japanese are known as Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). In spite of Japan protests, Dokdo is one-sidedly administrated currently by South Korea.

The correction of the mistake of the grammar and the term is allowed. --Opp2 01:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to take that offer (although minor fixes should be done), but there are too many be verbs and passive forms in your compromise. The entire thing is really awkward-sounding. (Wikimachine 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Therefore, please correct my awkward English and present description. However, the following two points cannot be removed. (Emphasize the protest and one-sided administration than present administration. Because the protest has the effect of invalidating the effect of the sovereignty exercise.)

Japan is protesting.
The present administration by South Korea is one-sided. (The protest of Japan is disregarded by Korea.)

How these two points are written is left to you. --Opp2 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your amendment bill was made a base.

Dokdo(Japanese are known as Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) under South Korea's unilateral administration despite Japanese protests.

It is possible to allow from respect of International Law. --Opp2 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Van Dyke is a main member of the conference about the Japan-South Korea annexation agreement that receives the support of the foundation in South Korea. He is a professor who makes remarks on South Korea, and this thesis quotes South Korean's thesis and emphasizes Korean historical title. However, there are a lot of mistakes in the interpretation of the ancient record because the quality of the quoted South Korean thesis is bad. In addition, he has forgotten that historical title is disregarded in International Law. Even such he is criticizing the insistence of South Korea "There is no dispute".--Opp2 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait. I tried to edit it just now, and I can't. My brain can't process it. Why should I emphasize the fact that Korea ignores the Japanese protest? I tried to understand what you mean by reading all the stuffs that you wrote above, and there's this part about how even if US says "there's no dispute" there still is dispute... but my previous revision said that Japan disputed the claim. (Wikimachine 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

South Korea claim title over Takeshima. Japan also claim title over Takeshima. At this point, two insistences do the conflict, and the dispute is generated in common sense. Only when one country retracts her claim, the dispute is canceled. The dispute continues as long as both Japan and Korea keeps insisting, too. I have already stopped the story of dispute because in Korea the definition of "dispute" different from common sense. I am advocating the description from the point of effect on International Law now. Because the protest has the effect of invalidating the effect of the sovereignty exercise in international law, it is necessary to give priority to the Japanese protest more than one-sided administration by South Korea.

Van Dyke

Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription.

SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court will, therefore, primarily, analyse the effectivités which date from the period before 1969, the year in which the Parties asserted conflicting claims to Ligitan and Sipadan.

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(PCIJ)

(The affair by both coutries after Norway had declared owning in 1931 became invalid. This case is similar to Takeshima in the point of unilateral declaration, the protest)

And, this is an essential rule to maintain peace of the world. I will add the unlawfulness of a present sovereignty exercise of South Korea to other parts. Here, it only has to has to be clear that Japan protests frequently and present Korean sovereignty exercis is one-sided(bulled). --Opp2 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, about "officially given title during" thingie, I don't see any need to put a parenthesized note on "Dokdo" because the name was used in Korean language long before the official naming of the island & the section only concerns about the names in different languages. (Wikimachine 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

It was said in 1903 the yanko island by Korean. It is at 1904 that the name of Dokdo was confirmed for the first time. In a Korean official document, 1906 is beginning. These are all based on the contemporary account. And, wasn't the insistence of South Korea Usando? Do you admit Usando was not Takeshima? [109]--Opp2 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that. (Wikimachine 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Your present correction is insufficient. I demand the correction to "Dokdo is a cluster of islets in the Sea of Japan(East Sea) administered by South Korea despite Japanese frequently protests". It is necessary to clarify that Korean administration is an unauthorized act based on International Law. I concede the description of the content of one-sided(bulled). --Opp2 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see "despite Japanese frequently protests" as being appropriate (in manner of writing & grammar) for an introductory statement. First of all, that's basically what the current correction states. All your suggestion adds is a direct link between the two facts of S. Korea administering the island and Japan protesting the S.K.'s control. Now, the intention to "clarify that Korean administration is an unauthorized act based on International Law" is POV, and to delay these arguments until the later sections would be more appropriate. (Wikimachine 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

The first sentences give a very big impression. The sovereignty exercise of South Korea cannot become equally a protest of Japan. Japan protests every year.[110]　You said that you would give priority to the second source. I presented the second source by which the sovereignty exercise of present South Korea became invalid by sufficient verifying the protest of Japan. I presented the second source against which Japan protested every year. It is necessary to defend what you said.--Opp2 15:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter that Japan protests every year? Good friend100 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Look Opp2, let me explain myself fully. Here's the intro.

Dokdo is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) administered by South Korea and claimed by Japan. It is called Takeshima in Japanese (given official title during the Japanese occupation of Korea). It is also sometimes called the Liancourt Rocks, after a French whaling ship that charted the islets in 1849. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in English, and publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".[1]

South Korea bases its claim on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do.

Japan disputes Korean sovereignty over Dokdo, based on historical records from the seventeenth century and the 1905 terra nullius incorporation. Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.

If you want to emphasize the fact that S. Korea is ignoring Japanese protests while Japan protests every year &? that makes S. Korea's rights over the island illegitimate, "according to the international laws", then that itself is a JPOV statement. Then, we would need a KPOV defense to why it has nothing to do with the illegitimacy. Those two explanations would be enough to make an entirely separate section. And... I don't really see a place to fit another section like that into the intro.

International Law is the world standard and common language of the territory and legal sovereignty(contain administration). It is the same as HTML in internet. Do you think that HTML is POV? Please present your standard before questioning me. And, I have already presented the second source about Japanese protest and Korean present administration. You are not presenting anything.--Opp2 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not talking about "source/reference" right now. I'm talking about the appropriateness of the content that you want to put into the intro. Guess what? HTML is used in the web. International law is used in courts. NPOV policy is used in Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is used in daily life. (Wikimachine 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Oh, and I'm sick of your parallels that you point out every time you try to wiggle yourself out of controversy. How does HTML coding have anything to do with international law and Wikipedia? And how in the world did I imply that HTML was POV? You try to weave these things together to make sense out of them, but in the end miserably fail. Just don't try because people here... their IQ are higher than you think. (Wikimachine 06:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

If you just want to include that Japan protests every year, it really sounds un-encyclopedic. "Japan disputes Korean sovereignty over Dokdo annually" would be SOTO or "statement of the obvious". The word "disputes" in present tense already implies a continuous action.

I am making the first opening sentence a problem. It is necessary to be described based on the world common rule. A one-sided sovereignty exercise of South Korea becomes invalid by the protest of Japan. It is not an equal relation. This is the world common standard. --Opp2 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How is one-side sovereignty exercise of S. Korea become invalid by a mere protest? Do you have any source for that? Why don't you present to us the entire literature on the international law - because I don't even know if that's true. And then you need a professor to write an essay on how this "style of writing" should be used on every articles regarding international disputes. Or else, it's WP:OR. (Wikimachine 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

If you feel that only Japan disputing the claim (& not S. Korea) sounds POV, explain to me why it sounds POV. Maybe because the order of words makes the statement sound as if S. Korea already owns the island in complete legitimacy while that is not the case... I think that is the case. Japan owns Tsushima, Korea still has a claim on it. But, what does Japan do? Nothing. It's the same here. S. Korea never responded to Japanese claims. (Wikimachine 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

I am not telling the story of "dispute". The superiority or inferiority of the law act based on the world common rule is an object of the discussion. The protest of Japan is given to priority from the world common rule more than the sovereignty act of South Korea. An opening sentence should reflect this fact.

What is world common rule. How is superiority/etc. an object of discussion? What is "an object of discussion"? Ok. Who gives priority to protest of Japan? Why should an opening sentence of an article reflect the international law's guidelines? (Wikimachine 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

You should confirm it here before changing the document. Change after hearing the opinion here.--Opp2 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

and publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation"

This is Kirea POV. Description with uncertain second source and violates the world standard. All stories of North Korea are unnecessary. It is necessary to delete this.

(given official title during the Japanese occupation of Korea)

Describe that it is a name from which Dokdo was officially confirmed in 1906 if you write this. It has already pointed it out. Your double criterion.--Opp2 06:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, "your double criterion" thing pisses me off. First, what you said is not grammatically correct, and I don't even think that's an existing phrase.

Why is that Korea POV? How is the secondary source uncertain? What is the world standard? And how am I double criterion?

By the way, "double criterion" doesn't mean anything. In other words, keep blame to yourself. Other people breaking the rules doesn't allow you to break them. (Wikimachine 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Oh, you want me to give a parenthesized description of how Dokdo was officially titled in 1906? I tried, like you asked, (you can see in the history) but another user told me that without reliable sources I couldn't put them on. So, maybe after you provide reference for that one. The real question is, why are you so desperate about these things? (Wikimachine 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Both are erased or both are inserted. The current description gives the impression that the insistence of Japan was generated in recent years. My grounds are that there is no Public Record written as Dokdo before 1906. It is necessary to present the source where Public Record written as Dokdo(獨島) before 1906 if you want to reject. You should study "probatio diabolica". If the record exists, even the hypothesis of the dialect is unnecessary. desperate? This time, is it a personal attack?It is natural to correct a present article which is violated a worldwide rule. --Opp2 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you to provide a ref on the fact that Dokdo was not used before 1906 because I don't think that's true. When you bring an argument to Wikipedia, you prove it. What is the Public Record? Who says it's necessary to present the source where etc.? That's historians' jobs. And we Wikipedians use those papers written by the historians who prove things. I've studied enough. And the comment it not a personal attack. What is the worldwide rule? I don't get this at all. (Wikimachine 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

"how Dokdo was officially titled in 1906" "I'm asking you to provide a ref on the fact that Dokdo was not used before 1906"> You changed the subject. Here, it is an official name, and not use that becomes a problem. Certainly, the Korean having been employed by a Japanese fisherman was catching fish at Takeshima in 1903. However, it is unrelated to the official name of "Dokdo". The first Korean Public Record written "Dokdo" is after Japan of is notified in 1906. This is true. The historian is also unrelated. Therefore, South Korean's historian made the hypothesis of the dialect. International Law is world rule.--Opp2 07:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You should add the following description as same as Japan. Don't use "probatio diabolica" again.

It is at 1906 that the title of Dokdo was published in Korean government record. --Opp2 07:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject, and I'm quite confident enough in my argument skills to avoid changing subjects. In fact, I hesitated in offering this dispute to other editors in fear that they might change the subject. No, I already said I tried to write on how Dokdo was officially titled in 1906, but another user reverted my edit (check history). So, I ask you again. Provide a source on the fact that the island was named "Dokdo" in 1906 by the Korean government because you claimed so (while I didn't even know that Usando was advocated by S. Korean government).

Certainly, the Korean having been employed by a Japanese fisherman was catching fish at Takeshima in 1903. However, it is unrelated to the official name of "Dokdo". I wasn't talking about fishermen.

The first Korean Public Record written "Dokdo" is after Japan of is notified in 1906. Then prove it.

The historian is also unrelated. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never mentioned a word on historians.

International Law is world rule. I'm not sure what you're saying. Either statement of the obvious or completely irrelevant. (Wikimachine 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

"how Dokdo was officially titled in 1906"> "How" is not necessary. Then, it is necessary to describe the transition details of the island name from Matsushima in Japan. In addition, it will be only in Korea POV and hypothesis at the case of "How was officially titled Dokdo". Only the fact is put on an opening sentence.

"Provide a source on the fact that the island was named "Dokdo" in 1906 by the Korean government"> "The record of the Korea government written Dokdo doesn't exist before 1906" this is true. You demand is same as "Provide a source on the fact that the island was named Takeshima in 1905 by the Japanese government." Japanese Government formally named Takeshima in 1905. However, there is a possibility to call Takeshima before. Set the record of a former Korea government befor 1906 if you want to object. Don't use "probatio diabolica". --Opp2 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, provide citation that substantiates your claim. (Wikimachine 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, we need a source on the fact that the island was named Takeshima in 1905 by the Japanese government.

Are you telling me to give a citation for something that you advocate? Look, you asked for the parenthesized description of the official titling of the Dokdo, when the rest of the people in Wikipedia assume that Dokdo was called Dokdo in Korean. You know what that means? That Dokdo was officially titled is your argument. Not mine. And in Wikipedia, you bring sources for what you advocate. Until then, you can't make changes.

Remember, it's you who first protested about the fact that other two names of Dokdo have parenthesized descriptions on it. Well, what was the reason for not putting the parenthesized description? Because no source. Then you bring proper references and fix. (Wikimachine 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Remember, You wrote only naming of Takeshima in Japan. Please present the evidence that is not called Japan Takeshima before 1905. In your standard, do though it becomes invalid?--Opp2 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

I can't believe you, this is extremely enervating. I don't think you understand at all how Wikipedia operates. You word it as if this discussion is some case on the Supreme Court or if its some persuasion essay with supporting details but it is NOT. Just because theres no one discussing about what you have to say doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want on the article just because you think it is right. Good friend100 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You admitted my insistence was impartial, logical and specific like the Supreme Court. Thank you. --Opp2 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me again. I said Wikipedia does not operate like a Supreme court case and you are treating like it is. That is not a compliment. Good friend100 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, no he didn't. --DandanxD 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

^ See [111]
^ See [112]
^ See [113]
^ See [114]

[1] See [111]

[2] See [112]

[3] See [113]

[4] See [114]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]