Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Requested moves to date

  1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
  2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
  3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New rules of conduct

Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?

I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.

  • All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it.
  • Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).
  • Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.
  • Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
  • Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, although I believe the root of the issue is problems in the consensus building process on this talk page, and this is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Phonemonkey 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You probably got a point there. And I must commend you for setting a good example in your section (#Second paragraph) above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Future Perfect, I see very little need to "cooperate" on edits that have slipped in by their pushing instead of consensus. These were never agreed in consensus. (Wikimachine 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
P.S. Oh, never mind. yes, please have those rouge rules in place, but please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Faking.2Fasserting_non-existent_consensus. The current version does not go with consensus. Also, I disagree nearly completely with your focus on me & Clownface @ Liancourt Rocks (it's a completely neutral version). Then clarify whether I should revert to the version prior to the dispute (b/c any new dispute must take place with the article in previous status) or if not what the rationale would be. (Wikimachine 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC))
Hello administrator. At least, there is a naming convention about "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" by precursors, for avoiding edit war. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea). So if Wikipedians remember it, a little seed of unnecessary reverting will be removed... --Nightshadow28 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Economy and tourism: Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence

Economy and tourism section starts from

"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"

I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June).[1] I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005[2] which describes:

"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo and Seoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."

Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?

Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005[3] and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).

　本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。

In addition, WP:LAME describes:

"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."

Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))--Jjok (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I come here from WP:LAME, where Jjok inserted an edit (and link to here) regarding this matter. I apologize for hastily reverting Jjok, but, in any case, it's not much appreciated by people that watch WP:LAME when people editing some controversial article go try and edit the entry on WP:LAME. Leave that to people that are impartial and not part of the battle.
Unfortunately, it's clear to me Jjok's bias has led to an unfair edit on this page. The original (unsubstantiated, it seems) claim is that "thousands of Japanese" claim Liancourt Rocks as their residence. Now Jjok inserts material that 26 have it listed as the ancestral home of their koseki. The koseki has nothing to do with where a Japanese person resides (as Jjok seems aware). It only lists the ancient, historical home of the family. So Jjok's edit had the result (even if unintentional) of making the Japanese number much smaller (while describing something different). Although Jjok disputes the numbers about residence, the also unsubstantiated Korean number was left alone. Why?
The claim regarding these numbers may not be solid. An old version of the article [4] shows it used to say over 900 Korean residents and 2000 Japanese residents. I couldn't find out where this came from, and there is no mention of it in the Hankooki reference for the sentence after that claim. Someone tried tagging it with a citation-needed tag, but it was removed for no good reason [5]. At some point the Du Mars reference mentioned above was added [6]. At a later point, the "over 900" was changed to "hundreds" and "over 2000" was changed to "thousands". I suppose the point of that is to make the Korean number seem much smaller than the Japanese number. Recently, an anonymous IP changed the "hundreds" to "thousands" (to make the Korean number seem comparable, obviously) [7]. This happened between two edits by Jjok, but either this was not seen or Jjok didn't consider it worth fixing.
Anyway, it seems the claim of hundreds or thousands of Koreans or Japanese listing it as a residence is unsubstantiated, so should be removed. As a joke, it is still funny, so I expect it will remain on WP:LAME. It's clear at some point that both governments were making claims of permanent residence, even when no citizen was living there. So the point of the joke holds: "serious" edit warriors should register a residence there to make their point! --C S (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

revisiting "administration" issue

I know this has probably already been decided, but the "administration" box just doesn't sit well with me in terms of accurately depicting the actual situation.

The indisputable facts are that both countries claim the islets and South Korea occupies them. One would not get that impression from the order (Japan first, then South Korea).

There has also been some protest over use of the word "administration."

Administration is the act of administering, which would mean "having charge of or managing." Japan does not have charge of the islets, nor does it manage it. South Korea has police forces residing on the islets and patrols the waters around the islets, which would qualify as "administering."

I think that a reasonably similar case would be a more appropriate model for the language to use, that of the Southern Kuril Islands, which are claimed by both Japan and Russia, but are controlled by Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

The disputed islands are currently under Russian administration as part of the Sakhalin Oblast, but are also claimed by Japan, which refers to them as the Northern Territories (北方領土 Hoppō Ryōdo) or Southern Chishima (南千島 Minami Chishima).

Thus, I'm suggesting that the administration box be changed to put South Korea first as "administered by" and Japan go second as something along the lines of "also claimed by."

If Japan is to be included as part of "administration," I wonder if North Korea shouldn't also be included, since they claim "Tok islet" as "part of the inviolable territory of Korea," of which they claim all, meaning territory held by the DPRK and ROK (as South Korea also does).

http://north-korea.narod.ru/history_3.htm

Personally, I think it would be terrifically misleading to say North Korea "administers" Tokto/Takeshima, even silly, but it's not that much less misleading to say Japan administers them.--Kushibo (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the islets are administered by South Korea but also claimed by Japan. There aren't any regions in the world that have multiples of administerations. Kingj123 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many users here do not know the distinctive differences between "administrative divisons" and "administration." They are totally different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingj123 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This island is disputed between Japan and Korea and currently occupied by Korea, as opening paragraph. It argued about that repeatedly. --W/mint-Talk- 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Explain why you don't disagree. The islets are administered by Korea not Japan.
It's very simple. Because you guys have only repeated the argument of the South Korean government. The present situation of this islets are explained as follows.
  • by SK government;"The islets are administered by Korea and claimed by Japan."
  • by JP government;"The islets are illegal occupied by Korea despite claimed by Japan."
  • by third parties;"The islets are currently occupied by Korea." (A few months ago, some citations were showed here as you know.)--W/mint-Talk- 11:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the info in administeration section, because administeration differs from administrative division. Kingj123 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree,too.
Pinnacle Islands, disputed island from China and Japan.
"The Senkaku Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by Japan, but also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)."
I support change word. 774townsclear 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Occupies word is JPOV.
support change word. "controlled" or ""administration" word is better. it is NPOV. 774townsclear 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occupy" is NPOV and general term--Opp2 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • THE WORLD FACT BOOK by CIA[8]
South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954
Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953
  • NEWS by washingtonpost[10]
Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal.
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia[11]
the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.
  • Prof. Van Dyke[12]p45
Since Japan's relinquishment of control over Korea after its defeat in World War II, Korea and Japan have contested the ownership of Dok-Do, which are currently occupied by Korea.
  • News week [13]
    Angered by Japanese moves to survey a contested range of islets currently occupied by Korea

Why is Japanese claim and Korean claim treated equally?

With all due respect to Japanese claims, Liancourt Rocks are officially a part of South Korea, while Japan is officially claiming Liancourt Rocks to be a part of Japan. Therefore, it is misleading for the claims of two countries to be treated equally. Tinned Butterfly (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh Geez, not this again! Sneakernets (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Renewed warning

I see renewed revert-warring. Let me remind you all that the rules against uncooperative editing are still in place here. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too, as an uninvolved admin. If I see any more warring, I will protect the pages. Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence that South Korean government subsidizes civilian inhabitants? (nt)

A accurate quote or link is required. John Nevard (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The last one seems the latest while I did not find newer one or how many MP stationing there. By the way, I like this boy with a Koizumi's photo.[14] Did he also transfer his?--Jjok (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

controvercial topic

John Nevard, I do not agree with your immediately edit. At first,it had discussed what expression is used the opening paragraph time after time. Probably you have not read those yet, please read already archived discussion recently. In the discussion so far,we had read many citations (by third party) which is using "occupied" not "administration" for the present situation of this islets. The most important point, the description of the opening paragpagh is a highly controversial topic according to the edits history and archived talk pages. Such issue should not be updated until any consensus is established on talk page especially this article. Therefore, You yourself should revert your edits to last version before somebody does it. Then, you can do the proposal of updating contents. So, It is a suggestion in order to keep your good faith. Thank you,--W/mint-Talk- 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be more helpful if both of you outlined what exactly you find objectionable about the other person's version. The differences certainly look minor to me, so where's the beef? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your care. I'd like to point out the followings;
  • This is a opening paragraph which mean the essence of outline. The situation of this islets should have been explained accurately there.
  • In third parties view, the present situation of this islets is regarded to the "occupied by SK Gov." not "administrated by SK Gov. " or "illegal occupied by SK Gov.". Many citation were showed here already.
  • However, User:John Nevard's edit [15] is explaining the sutiation as "Korean occupy and administrate..." The citations which were presented by User:John Nevard also doesn't explain the situation as "administrated by SK Gov." If "South Korean" mean 66-years old fisherman and wife, still more such a detailed issue should not be written to the opening paragraph. (It is already written to the paragraph of Economy and tourism.)--W/mint-Talk- 13:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is minor, it is necessary to use a general term further. I do not understand the reason to use a special term. --Opp2 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I noticed John Nevard on his talk page [16], he seemingly will not have the intention of having a dialog. [17], [18] So, I changed back description into a former version.--W/mint-Talk- 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of the U.S. after S.F. treaty

The present description contradicts official records of the United States. Official records of the United States are here[19][20]. The description was corrected based on these Official records as follows.

In 1951, during the Korean War, Lieutenant General John B. Coulter affiliated with the U.S. Army in Korea requested and received permission from South Korea to use the islets for military exercises. However in the negotiation on the bombing area between U.S. government and ROK, the U.S. government send a diplomatic document to Korea and refused the Korean claim.

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that' Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."

though it is unknown whether such permission was also requested of Japan.(comment:This description contradicts official material of the USA.) Barely a year later,(comment:This description contradicts official material of the USA. The impression putting is done by presumption based on the poor evidence.) on July 26, 1952, the United States Government made a security agreement with Japan listing the island as a "facility of the Japanese Government" because U.S. government judged that Liancourt Rocks is Japanese territory by the rusk documents.The military exercises included bombing the islets similar to U.S. military uses of Vieques, in Puerto Rico and Kahoolawe, in the occupied Hawaiian Islands.(comment:It is not important.)

Please point out any mistakes in my grammar you find. And, because US army permission in 1951 is an event before signing the San Francisco treaty (naturally, it doesn't come into effect), the position of the first sentence about US army is wrong too. That is, it is an activity based on the wartime occupation by Allies, and it is quite unrelated to the SF treaty. Where should we move this sentence?--Opp2 (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, from the way you present this material I cannot work out where what parts of it are taken from and what you actually want to say. Can you refactor please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the beginning of your third paragraph, "States of August 10,1951 ..." apparently has some material missing. That's a fragmented sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I deleted the third paragraph.--Opp2 (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • point1. U.S government send formal diplomatic document to Korea. The document protest Korean claim.

This was done in response to the ROK protest of the alleged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.'The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."[21]

  • point2.Security agreement with Japan is a formal intergovernmental treaty. Because the United States had admitted the sovereignty of Japan, this treaty was concluded.

(Introduction of rusk document) The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified.[22]

My amendment bill is almost the same as the OFFICIAL document(That is, it words it of U.S. government）. My interpretation is not added.--Opp2 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still utterly confused about what you are trying to say here. Your additions only add to that confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Simply, U.S. government did not change the recognition of the rusk documents. This is not POV. US government recorded so. The recognition of the rusk documents is to refuse the Korean claim.　--Opp2 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the rusk documents is as follows.
"We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim.[23]"
This is not POV. US government recorded so.--Opp2 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That is POV of US government. --Appletrees (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course. However, it is only the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and Britain that can demand the Japanese territory abandonment against Japan based on Potsdam Declaration. And, only Japan can abandon Japanese territory.
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie ISBN 978-0199260713 "It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to exist, and, indeed, the legal basis of the occupation depended on its continued existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being."
It is only SF treaty that Japan agreed to the abandonment of Japanese territory. The drafter of the SF treaty is United States. This is a reason why the United States will in the SF treaty is important. I only say that the article should be faithful to the record. --Opp2 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

after WW II and before

The point of argument of the dispute Liancourt Rocks changes in the after WW II and before.before WW II, it is problem which country previously occupied Liancourt Rocks.but after ww II, It is problem whether Liancourt Rocks be included in the territory abandoned by the SF treaty.Thus I added "International law~" to "After World War II and during occupied Japan" section.It is NPOV.--Forestfarmer (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to divide the part into " during occupied Japan " and "SF treaty and afterwards". These are legally different quite as Brownlie said (see above). SCAPIN677 and US army permission are activities and a policy as agency of Japan under the military occupation. However, the territory attribute to the legal person(Japan) and not to holders for the time being(GHQ or ROK).--Opp2 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following part compositions. A part of "SF treaty and afterwards" consists of bold events and records. A part of "during occupied Japan" consists of other records. --Opp2 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • January 29, 1946: SCAPIN677 (very considerable derogation of Japanese sovereignty by occupation)
  • June 22, 1946:SCAPIN1033
  • Korean interraption about SCAPIN677
  • September 16, 1947: SCAPIN1778(Specification for the bombing ground is notified to Japan)[24]
  • June 20, 1951: U.S. Military received permission about bombing from ROK
  • August 10, 1951: Rusk Documents(About SF treaty, Reject Korean claim)
  • September 8, 1951: SF treaty was signed
  • November 30, 1951: The CIA's Daily Digest
  • April 28, 1952: The SF treaty came into effect(Japan recovered full sovereignty, Release from occupation, Agreement of renounce of Japanese territory)
  • July 26, 1952: US made a security agreement with Japan listing the island as a Japanese facility (This is justified by the Rusk document) [25]
  • November 14, 1952: US denied Korean interpretation about scapin677.[26]
  • December 4, 1952: US sent the letter to ROK(The recognition of US was stated　in a Rusk document)
  • April - August 1954: US ambassador(Van Fleet) 's recommendation　(Liancourt Rocks remained under Japanese sovereignty)　[27]


Forget it Opp. Your "interpretation" reeks of JPOV and is slanted to your own legal theories.

The negotiations involving the fate of former Japanese territories was a long, drawn-out process. There were multiple drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. John M Van Dyke's article provides an excellent summary of these negotiations. "...The first five and seventh drafts of the treaty provided that Dokdo be returned to Korea by including the islets in the Article 2(a) list. The sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth drafts explicitly stated that the territory of Japan included Dokdo Takeshima. The tenth through thirteenth and fifteenth through eighteenth drafts, like the final draft, were silent on the status of Dokdo Takeshima...."

"...The allied powers did not indicate why they chose to remain silent on the outcome, but the varying positions taken during the deliberation process indicate that the decision was made either because not enough information had bee provided regarding the historical events surrounding Japan's incorporation of Dokdo Takeshima or because the Allied Powers felt themselves incapable or inadequate adjucators..."

Shimane Prefecture interprets the San Francisco Peace Treaty from a very narrow perspective. That being, Japanese Takeshima lobbyists rely heavily on American confidential memorandums exchanged during the negotiation process. (Dean Rusk) Let us remember first these were confidential documents that never saw the pages of the treaty itself. We must also consider there were 48 other nations involved in the deliberation process. This leads us to believe some other countries did not concur with U.S. foreign policy toward Dokdo Takeshima.

Again the San Francisco Peace Treaty was not the Dean Rusk, Van Fleet Treaty. Don't impose the will of a few Americans on the free world...

I 100% disagree with your proposal.Clownface (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I check this page regularly. Don't try to edit without consent like you have done before or I will request you be banned.

There is no my interpretation. All are records of the United States. Do not turn your eyes away from the fact. --Opp2 (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me.I have a question to Clownface.I want you to be cool. why do you deleted my edit ? It is not connected to Opp2's proposition yet.--Forestfarmer (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Forestfarmer, if you are the one who posted the Ian Brownlie information then you are simply a sockpuppet of Opp2. Did you post this information. If so I will ask this be investigated. Again did you post the Ian Brownlie info??Clownface (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian Brownlie's info is form there ja:ラスク書簡 The thing which I want to say is already written.Although it becomes a repetition "after ww II, It is problem whether Liancourt Rocks be included in the territory abandoned by the SF treaty" this is NPOV. Since you are angry about the contents which Opp2 wrote.but that is another problem. OK or No?--Forestfarmer (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Opp-Forestfarmer. This is not a forum to post every legal scholar's views on the interpretation of the SF Peace Treaty. This article should not become "Japan says...." and "Korea says..." Otherwise the Liancourt Rocks article is going to digress into an argument.

The Ian Brownlie reference is a legal scholars opinion (POV) It is Japan's POV this opinion is relevant. Keep it out. BTW Forestfarmer, are you a sockpuppet of Opp2?Clownface (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

...If it is made your theoretical ,"Treatment of Liancourt Rocks in the San Francisco treaty" section is all US POV.--Forestfarmer (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Opp2's edits.

Seriousl Opp what have you done to the Post WWII part of this document. Have you been adding your own legal interpretations again? We have to clean up this mess right away!! Clownface (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp the legal reference you cited is not related to the history of Liancourt Rocks. This is not a page to post your legal theories. Clownface (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no my interpretation. All are records of the United States. Do not turn your eyes away from the fact.--Opp2 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • US denied the Korean interpretation of SCAPIN677. [28]
  • US denied Korean claim about Liancourt Rocks and send diplomatic document.[29]
  • The ambassador of the US told the South Korea government that it was a Japanese territory.[30]

Even if you do not want to believe, these are facts.--Opp2 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Seriously Opp are you O.K.??

I'm not here to talk law with you. There is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the SF Peace Treary. Not one. You cannot say this treaty renounced anything to Japan, if you do, you enter the realm of opinion or POV and readers are not interested.

I see you conveniently "forgot" article 5 of SCAP 677. Don't worry, I entered it for you.Clownface (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You need not speak with me. You only have to read US government's record. I am only introducing US government's official document. Not I but the United States denyed Korean claim.--Opp2 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, U.S. Government CONFIDENTIAL records are not final determinations of the SF Peace Treaty. When you try to say they were then you are stating opinion (POV) Koreans have their own interpretations of these documents and so do other lawyers. Rather than posting all these POVs leave them out and save us about 10 gazillion Megabites of bandwidth and stress.

BTW Koreans did sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a screw loose. Again keep your legal opinions off this page or I will revert.Clownface (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know that your suggestions are all based on original research? Wikipedia is not a place for you to write a research paper on what you think about the rocks. Gathering evidence to try and push your bias is not allowed in Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV. Citing information with sources does not mean that they are ok to include in the article. What your doing is POV-pushing.
We are not here to decide on whether the US governments files are official or how the files should be interpreted into the article or other blah blah. And your proposals are nothing but your own project. Frankly, no one cares about what you want to put in because its way too slanted. STOP making biased proposals. Happy edit warring! I'm sure it will end up down there. Good friend100 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It is necessary to write the fact. And, it should write both claims. The United States refused the Korean claim. This is fact. It is necessary to introduce it. Korea only has to be insisted that this is invalid because Japaneses lobbying etc. with evidence and reliable source. I never say that we should delete the interpretation of Korea even if it contradicts the record of the United States. However, you only try to blot out inconvenient records and the facts for you. --Opp2 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Opp2, what part of the word "NO!" Don't you understand?Clownface (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Because these new material was verified and introduced by this thesis (sory, Japanese) [31], this is not OR. And, I only present material which was verified now and I have not written the Japanese claim and interpretation based on this thesis and material yet. Because these new material is not reflected, the VAN’s thesis is already old. VAN relies on information on Mark S. Lovmo’s site. However, the site is very strange. These new material is settled in the same microfilm as other image that he is presenting. I do not understand why he disregarded these important material.　It is not good to conceal the fact because it is inconvenient for Korea.--Opp2 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, nobody is telling you to disregard information. We are denying your interpretation of them. Do you want me to post Korea's interpretation of the San Francisco Peace treaty? Or Jon Van Dyke's? Or Korean scholars? Of course not.

Again, I object to your edit as did Goodfriend. What is wrong with you?124.80.111.109 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the following Korean interpretation about US govermental records based on the comment of Crownface for NPOV. But I cannot find citiation. Please add a citiation of your claim.--Opp2 (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Koreans are claiming these U.S. governmental records are invalid because they ware influenced by Japanese lobbying at that time.

Opp, a NPOV summary of the San Fran Treaty was added and I'll cite Korean refutations for your info later.

The added data for the treaty was from Van Dykes article and just gives an general outline it was sourced from the pdf of his article found here.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jonvandyke-doc.pdfClownface (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your summary is KPOV. Because Japanese scholer likes Prof. Daijyudo doesn't say so. The I will add the top of your summary as "Korean argue". --219.167.62.6 (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hands off!! Show the readers here where the San Francisco Peace Treaty makes any mention of Liancourt Rocks. There is ZERO mention of Liancourt Rocks in the Treaty. ZERO.

It goes back.Clownface (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, here is the text of the Sanfrancisco Peace Treaty. Show where Liancourt is mentioned

http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ostasiatische_geschichte/texte/japan/dokumente/19/19510908_treaty.htm

Please show which part of text is KPOV before you omit other's data. Which part above is KPOV?Clownface (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

219.167.62.6, you're very rude and uncivil. If you participated in the discussion in a constructive way, why don't you make a new account instead of revealing yourself "Japanese"? (I doubt you're a new user). --Appletrees (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, the conflict is done as the scholar in Japan. Is it NPOV to exclude the insistence of Japan?--Opp2 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IF you want describe KOREAN SIDE CLAIM. You should describe as "KOREAN CLAIM　or ARGUE". It is not NPOV and is true when conflicting with the insistence of Japan.　--Opp2 (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you admit the anon is you? Huh, interesting. To me, the term "Korean argue" sound absolutely not NPOV but POV. Then you're "Japanese argue". I somewhat understand you try to insert the SF treaty because Japanese defeated by US. Simple indeed. --13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)
Then, how do you do when the conflict is done? Do you decide which is true? It is necessary to describe the both theories in parallel when confrict was occured.--Opp2 (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp you fail to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Every shred of historical data that is entered on this website doesn't have to turn into a debate or argument. I'm sick of you adding tags to all of the data that says "However Professor "-----" says...." Then you justify this by obligating others to counter with an alternative POV. This is rubbish.

There is no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the San Fran Peace Treaty. Period.

If there is any mention please be sure to point if out and I will enter this important data. The entire text of the treaty is above. Otherwise this Professor Daijyudo is just blowing hot air like you. Maybe he believes in the Easter Bunny for all we know.Clownface (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Write the subject of the insistence.　After all, you pretend NPOV, and you are excluding the insistence of Japan. --Opp2 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp I gave no POV on the data I entered. First, Jon Van Dyke's article gave a factual summary of all allied decisions in previous drafts. Some drafts included the islands as Korean others as Japanese and finally Liancourt Rocks was excluded altogether from the treaty. Then Mr Van Dyke gave the reasons why their was no decision was made on Liancourt Rocks

You are trying to say that there was decision that Liancourt Rocks was mentioned in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. If this is true please present the text of the treaty that says so and I will include it. You are trying to enter JPOV opinions and interpretations of the treaty. Stick with the facts and stop turning this article into a JPOV vs KPOV forum

You have no consensus on this board to do this.Clownface (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your summary have no consensus--Opp2 (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of Japanese claim

[32] Does he have the right to exclude the Japanese claim with sources by Japanese scholars? My insistence is easy. When the conflict has been generated, it is necessary to write both claims. And, when the both claims are described in parallel, it is necessary to describe the subject of each claims clearly(looks like "Korean say" etc..). Because it is taken like the fact to which it is decided if there is no subject. Isn't this a commonsense rule to avoid edit battle? Is such a brutality permitted? --Opp2 (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, your information is proven wrong by a simply glance at the Sanfrancisco Peace Treaty. Mr Van Dyke's article states Liancourt Rocks was excluded from the San Francisco Peace Treaty. When we view the entire text of the treaty we see this to be true.

Your information is wrong and can be verified as such. I've asked you several times to show what part of the treaty mentions Liancourt Rocks and you haven't answered me at all. The treaty in its entirety is above so it should be a no-brainer for you to show us.

Also you must stop entering your legal theories of questionable relevence. You have been warned numerous times on this forum to stop preaching law but still you persist. I have to wonder if you have a serious problem.Clownface (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

questionable? relevence? Therefore, you are only excluding an inconvenient insistence. Do you have the right to decide which insistence is correct? Does it have such an ability?　You are recognizing it is true only the insistence that you want to believe. --Opp2 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, I'm also excluding KPOV on legal theories on these matters. It's not about censorship of JPOV. Posters on this board are trying to avoid turning Wiki's Liancourt page into an argument. That's not what this website is about. Try to understand. Really Opp2 you should keep legal theories to your own blog instead of using a public encylopedia as a forum to do so. I hope you understand.124.80.111.109 (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, I will ask you. How do you explain though Vandyke's conclusion contradicts Brownlie's International Law? Did you think that Vandyke was more correct than Brownlie why?　Do you have the ability to decide this?--Opp2 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not deceive. I was describing clearly as doctor's thesis. It is not my own claim. Do you have the ability to disregard the Japanese scholar of international law？--Opp2 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, Van Dyke makes no legal decision on Liancourt he simply states the facts. That being, the islands were omitted from the treaty and there was no decision either way to determine the fate of Liancourt Rocks. Thus, Van Dykes analysis doesn't favor Korea nor Japan and is NPOV. Maybe that's why you hate it so much. Because you are trying to impose JPOV on the SF Treaty when the allies were silent on the issue of Liancourt.

Opp2 you are implying the ommission of Liancourt Rocks constitutes a conscious decision by the Allies to give the islets to Japan, in the S.F. Peace Treaty, when in fact there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks at all. Thus you have entered the rhelm of opinion and legal interpretation and digressed from the facts. We don't want opinions here.124.80.111.109124.80.111.109 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You recognized only Vandyke's insistence from two or more insistences as a absolute fact. And, other insistences were excluded. You have the ability to select only one truth and NPOV interraption from a lot of sources and legal interpretations. Therefore, I think that following question is easy for you. Please teach me.
Vandyke's conclusion contradicts Brownlie's International Law. Did you think that Vandyke was more correct than Brownlie why?--Opp2 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp here are the facts from Vandykes information.

Drafts 1~5 and 7 of the SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Korea. Drafts 6,8,9, and 14th of the SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Japan. Drafts 10~13, 15~18 and the final draft were silent on Dokdo.

Then he says the allies couldn't decide because they felt they didn't have enough info or felt they weren't capable of deciding.

Seriously what's the problem? Why do you feel it's KPOV? Please point out the factual inaccuracies or quit whining.124.80.111.109 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, such a thing is not heard. I do not tell Vandyke's insistence should exclude. I only told it to describe the both theories in parallel. However, you assumed only the insistence on the van to be true. And, the insistence of the scholar in Japan was excluded. Therefore, I hear. Do you have the ability to selection? Are you greater than the Japanese scholar? And, do you notice Lee Brownlie and Vandyke's contradiction? --Opp2 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp the difference is you or some Japanese scholar is claiming that Brownlie's legal theories are applicable to the SF Peace Treaty. This is why your idea is POV.

The Vandyke article I cited is not a legal analysis nor theory, it is a timeline of the negotiations between the allies and Japan. It's just a summary, that's all and thus it's free of POV.

Again, I didn't enter any KPOV "theories" thus we don't need to enter JPOV and play silly games. Every fact that is entered on this page doesn't need to digress into a JPOV~KPOV argument.124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

SF treaty is Silent about Takeshima?

Ian Brownlie “The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty.”　

When did Japan consent to renounce of Liancourt Rocks? Did Japan consent to the delusion under a silence? You seem to have an ability that is more excellent than Brownlie. Please prove the theory of this Brownlie is wrong. Or, did title by the conquest revive? There are a lot of interpretations also between Japanese scholars. You seem to have the ability to select only one as fact and NPOV from a lot of legal interpretations. Please teach me.--Opp2 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, there is no contradiction between Van Dyke's article and Brownlie. They are totally different in that Van Dykes is a factual account of what happened during the San Francisco Peace Treaty. This is POV free.

Your information is a legal scholars opinion on law (Brownlie), and a Japanese professor's opinion that this law is relevant. That is POV. This is not the ICJ or a court of law we are not lawyers. Whether or not Browlie's reference or the Japanese professor's claims are applicable is purely hypothetical.

I'm not interested in getting into a KPOV vs JPOV hypothetical legal debate here with you and the readers here simply aren't interested. Do you understand?124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, you are not explaining anything. Are you a god? When did Japan consent to renounce? Please teach me.--Opp2 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

124.80.111.109 say that “ his is not the ICJ or a court of law we are not lawyers “

Off course. Therefore, it is necessary to describe two or more insistences in parallel. However, he assumed only Vandyke's interpretation to be true from a lot of interpretations. He excluded all other interpretations. At this point, he is contradicted.--Opp2 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

God?? Opp now you just sound silly.

Opp you stated. "When did Japan consent to renounce of Liancourt Rocks?" I never once said that Opp and neither did Van Dyke. You are putting words in my mouth and I don't like being lied to. Stop making strawman arguments. The information I've given is summarized below.

Again, here are the facts from Vandykes information.

Drafts 1~5 and 7 of the SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Korea. Drafts 6,8,9, and 14th of the SF Treaty gave Dokdo to Japan. Drafts 10~13, 15~18 and the final draft were silent on Dokdo.

Then Van Dyke says the allies couldn't decide because they felt they didn't have enough info or felt they weren't capable of deciding.

Again, there is no KPOV in Van Dykes timeline/summary of the SF Peace Treaty.

Thus, there is no need for you to enter a JPOV legal analysis of the SF Peace Treaty. Keep your data neutral and stop trying to use every historical record on this page as a excuse to slyly insert some JPOV Takeshima lobbyists legal spin on the information.

Opp, please try to understand wikipedia is not the proper forum to present hypothetical legal arguments. The public come here to read a factual summary of the Liancourt Rocks dispute.124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian Brownlie “The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty.”　
When did Japan consent to renounce? Please teach me. I am not insisting on the exclusion of the interpretation of Vandyke. I am telling it to write two or more interpretations. It is not me but is you that exclude a lot of legal interpretations. Should not me but you study the policy of Wikipedia?--Opp2 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, for the third time now. I never stated Japan renounced Liancourt Rocks.

No scholars deny Japan as a nation ceased to exist during allied occupation. What is at issue is the territorial boundary of Japan. So really what does Brownlies comments on post WWII Germany have to do with Japan? Who is to decide if this is applicable? You? Some Japanese "scholar" This is why we have to refrain from posting POV legal analyses and turning this page into an argument.

And yes I exclude a lot of legal interpretations. So should you. The Liancourt Rocks page is not a legal debate forum.

As far as Wiki's policy Opp, you've been warned before from trying to post your legal theories on this forum before. I'd suggest you do stop doing so.Clownface (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, you assume only Vandyke's insistence to be the truth from a lot of legal interpretations. And, you excluded the interpretations other than Vandyke. Are you a highest authority of International Law?
Erase neither insistence of the Japanese scholar nor the law theory by Brownlie. Do not press Vandyke's interpretation for a fact. You have neither the ability, power nor the authority to select the theory.Naturally, I do not have these either. Therefore, I am insisting on the parallel description of two or more theories.　It compares, and even if Vandyke's theory means a revival of the title by conquest, I do not tell it to delete.--Opp2 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp2 if you find any factual inaccuracies in Van Dyke's summary of the San Francisco Peace Treaty please point them out and we can discuss them and correct. I've been fair and asked you several times what's wrong with it and you keep changing the subject.

Do you have such a right? Is your permission necessary? There are two or more interpretations. You do not have the ability to judge which is correct. Therefore, two or more interpretations are written.--Opp2 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Brownlie's comment on post WWII Germany I say it is both POV and irrelevant and I will revert if it is entered.Clownface (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. You do not have the ability to judge which is correct.　His book is the one that "General principle" of International Law was shown. Germany case is presenting as a "Case" of a “General principle”. A general principle is applicable anywhere.--Opp2 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again Opp2, VanDykes comment on the San Francisco Peace Treaty are not an "interpretation" they are a factual summary or timeline of the negotiations. They are not KPOV nor JPOV. Clownface (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not have the ability to judge which is correct and fact. Don't press VANDYKE'S THEORY AS A FACT which contradicts even a general principle.--Opp2 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

＜Conclusion based on general principle＞ The connect of Japan is necessary for the renounce of the Japanese territory. Japan has not agreed to renounce. Therefore, sovereignty is Japan. Simple, lucid logic.

＜VANDYKE>

  • “the Allied Powers felt themselves incapable or inadequate adjudicators”　
What is this? Excuse? Because the Allied Powers were incapable, Japan agreed to renounce of Takeshima? An important thing is Japan agreed to renounce.
  • “The allied powers did not indicate why they chose to remain silent on the outcome,”
Did Japan agree to renounce of Takeshima though allied powers remain silent?
  • “because not enough information had bee provided regarding the historical events surrounding Japan's incorporation of Dokdo”
Did Japan agree to renounce of Takeshima because allied powers was ignorant?

Is this a summary? What does he want to say? The conclusion based on a general principle is evaded, and he is only making an excuse. Is such an excuse necessary why? For whom are these excuses? Is this NPOV?--Opp2 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, I've warned you. If you enter legal theories I wiil revert. So I did. I only cited Van Dyke's article to verify the timeline of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Keep your legal theories to your blog.

Fact One. The first five and seventh drafts of the treaty provided that Liancourt be given to Korea by including the islets in the Article 2(a) list.

FAct Two. The tenth through thirteenth and fifteenth through eighteenth drafts, like the final draft, were silent on the status of Dokdo Takeshima.

Fact Three. In the end there was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

If you disagree with Van Dykes reasons for not including Liancourt Rock you may give reasons if you cite them.

As I've mentioned Brownlies legal theories may be applicable or may not. It is up to a judge at the ICJ to decide this NOT you.Clownface (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Japanese is first?

This territory are occupied by Korea now.(Japanese do not occupy, just insist Korea is theirs.) So I think Korean is first and Japanese is second. (Sorry, my english writing is too short) BongGon (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp2 is posting under sockpuppets

Opp why are you posting under the sockpuppet "forestfarmer" do you think the posters on this forum are stupid? Under what premise did you delete information from the Liancourt Rocks page? Clownface (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

hi,I am Foretfarmer and not Opp2's Sockpuppet and I want you not to repeat it without there.what do you want me ? check user ?--Forestfarmer (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Clownface, please calm down. Don't criticize people with a mere conjecture. Why do you do so hysteric reaction since several documents were presented here? --W/mint-Talk- 09:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a document not disclosed still. However, I will postpone to add that for his mental condition.--Opp2 (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that he tries to exclude the one that it doesn't follow his opinion. The tool of exclusion is his favorite scholar. Only "Theory" of his favorite scholar is assumed to be a fact. Other scholars' theories are excluded. This method of him is the same also in the part of the history. And finally, he tries to exclude me who brings bad convenience information for him.--Opp2 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Vandyke V.S. Prof. Serita powered by ICJ

Judicial precedent that Prof. Serita quoted is follows.[33]

106 Qatar also rnaintains that the 1939 British decision is nuIl and void because Qatar :never consented to the process. Qatar adds that there was bias on the part of the relevant officiais of the British Government and that the decisiori was not supported by reasons; it considers that procedural violations tainted not only the 1939 decision but also the "provisional" decision rendered in 1936 (see paragraph 54 above).
146 The Court accordingly concludes that the decision taken by the British Government on 11 July 1939 is binding on the Parties.
148 The conclusion thus reached by the Court on the basis of the British decision of 1939 makes it unnecessary for the Court to rule on the arguments of the Parties based on the existence of an original title, efy'ctivitas,and the applicability of the principle of uti possidetis,juris to the present case.

This is very interesting. The insistence on Qatar is the same as Vandyke. It only complains about the decision. Is the Allies ignorant? Even the discussion is not done. whether the decision of Britain was impartial or right. Is the history more important? As for the history, even the examination was not done. The decision of Britain is all. Do you believe Vandyke or ICJ?--Opp2 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if Vandyke's shoddy complaining wonderful conclusion contradicts ICJ, I do not tell it should be delete. However, do not press his shoddy complaining wonderful conclusion as a fact.--Opp2 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp2 I removed the portion of Vandyke's that you feel is incorrect. I also removed your legal interpretations. There are not relevant here. Clownface (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shogunat's writing of An incident

<Present description>

"An had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that the islands were Korean possessions."

Source of this description is here[34].

"Dai-nihon-chimei-jisho (Geographic Dictionary of Japan)" that devotes a special section to the topic. (SYC.) It records that the Edo shoganate banned Japanese from traveling to the Dokdo Islets in 1699.

Here is Dai-nihon-chimei-jisho.[35] Perhaps, I think that it indicates the following descriptions. (p9)

「鬱稜は本来我属島なり、文跡昭然、且彼に遠く此に近く、境界自ら別つ、貴国錯認して事を生ず」と諭す、我が幕府ついに屈して和興を為し、竹島渡海を禁制す、實に元禄十二年也。(The Korean government official said that "Ulleng belongs to our country .....and Your country(Japan) caused a disturbance." Shogunate yielded and the take a passage to Takeshima was prohibited. It was 1699.)

It is said, the government official in Korea is "Ulleung". Does this become Liancourt Rocks why? The Korean scholar is sure also to know Liancourt Rocks was called Matsushima in Japan at that time. Is such a cheap mistake done why? With this, it might be the same as the propaganda of the tabloid newspaper. This Shogunate's letter is recorded only as An's testimony. There is not a record that the government official of Chosun confirmed this letter either. Why "he had the reconfirm in writing"? Even Prof. Naito is concluding that general's letter is An's lie. When did it become true? I want you to present clear grounds.--Opp2 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was clarified that it was An's testimony.--Opp2 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Blabber

Opp, what kind of B.S. legal blabber is this?

However Japanese scholars claim that Liancourt Rocks was left in Japan because it is not described in the SF treaty as an renouncement territory by Japan. If Liancourt Rocks away from Dagelet at 90km[1] is made a Korean territory, it is necessary to be described clearly in the treaty like Port Hamilton.[2] Though Japan was a defeated country, her sovereignty can’t be transferred without the consent of Japan in international law.[3][4] It has been proven that the many records of the U.S. looks like Rusk documents did not include Liancourt Rocks in the treaty as Japanese renounce territory. ICJ judged that the decision in 1939 of Britain who is a suzerain of Qatar and Bahrain restrained the two countries in the judicial precedent[5]. A scholar is pointing out that the judgment and records of the U.S. that initiated the SF treaty has significance effect same as this ICJ judgment.[6]

Seriously, Opp are trying trying to teach law here or give the readers impartial information about Liancourt Rocks?Clownface (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read attached references really? According references, Opp2 did not say it but Japanese scholar said it. --W/mint-Talk- 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you hate International Law so much, you should delete descriptions based on the thesis of Myung-Ki Kim(terra nullius contradiction, Ogasawara, notification and Russia~Japan War etc.). If you did not do it, you might be considered that the double criterion was used. The selection that you can do is two. You recover my edit or delete Kim's description. I will wait for 24 hours. Please don't let me down.--Opp2 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to confirm to you about your delete standard. May I think that we should delete when corresponding to either the following?

  • Even if it is scholar's thesis, the description concerning International Law should delete.
  • When the opinion is different in Japan and Korea, the both theories is not described in parallel but it is necessary to delete both. Because it is KPOV and JPOV.

I think the following descriptions that meet both requirements to be a deletion candidate first.(Moreover, only the insistence of South Korea is written.)

Notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of the Liancourt rocks 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. (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.)

By the way, it is not only a Japanese scholar that denies above claims. A Korean scholar is negative, too. When you delete this sentence, I will introduce the thesis.--Opp2 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Request to have this page monitored and dispute settled

I totally disagree with Opp2 definition of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and rather that revert warring I'd like a concensus reached by an impartial party if possible. This is getting rediculous!!124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you fear? Does it try to be concealed the insistence why? I do not intend to point out the fault and the contradiction of Vandyke's interraption at the article. I do not obstruct the insistence of South Korea too. The edit war doesn't occur if you do not obstruct the insistence of Japan like Clownface. It only has to write an insistence each other augustly.--Opp2 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sangoku setsujozu

A detailed map is here.[36] The written character is as follows.

  • 竹嶋より穏州ヲ望又朝鮮ヲモ見ル　朝鮮ノ持也(Oki state(island) is looked at from Takeshima. Moreover, Korea is seen.This is a Korean territory.)

A big island is Ulleungdo(At that time, Ulleungdo was called Takeshima in Japan). There is no controversy about this. The interpretation has divided about a small island nearby Ulleungdo without the name as follows.

  • Japanese interpretation:This island is jyukdo.
  • Korean interpretation:This island is Liancourt Rocks.

Therefore, I assumed "islet", and wrote both interpretations for NPOV.[37] However, rv. was done by Odst[38]. His rv. reason is "no need to repeat an already said argument." There is no such description for this map. If it is the overall story, the Korean interpretation that interprets all island except Ulleungdo as Liancourt Rocks has already been written. It can be assumed "jyukdo" for the same reason if becoming the standpoint of Japan. That is, if his theory is applied, the following descriptions become possible,

The map shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ulleungdo and the Liancourt rocks are Jyukdo is shown, at the correct latitude and longitude, in yellow. Alongside the islands Hayashi wrote, "Korea's possessions."

Does he admit this? The edit war will be caused. Does not he make it to an equal description why? I think that it is the reason that there is no rationality in the Korean interpretation. Therefore, an equal description is refused, and the Japanese interpretation should be concealed for Korean. --Opp2 (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have notified Odst regarding this issue at his note as #Liancourt old map. [39] Let's wait for a reply to come from him.--W/mint-Talk- 12:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As Opp2 and this article itself describe, Ulleungdo was called as Takeshima at that time and there is no known material that designates the rocks as Takeshima before 1905. I agree with Odst's comment that "no need to repeat an already said argument." Hayashi Shihei's map has been repetitively discussed here. We do not have to discuss this again and again and again.
But first of all, Odst has to give reliable sources, not gol.com or kimsoft stuffs. "I saw it on the internet!" is not enough here, in such a controversial and ArbCom-ruled article. We know his map has been reported several times as "discovery of a new material to show Japanese recognition of sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo!", therefore, I think it won't be difficult for you to find more reliable news sources, however, official sources from go.kr such as Cyber Dokdo are highly recommended (though I do not recommend the map on the home page showing Dokdo at Ulleungdo and Ulleungdo at Argonaut?). Please cite the author/organization, the publisher, the title of the article, date, etc. in addition to the link to the article.--Jjok (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, Japanese records show that their government wasn't even aware of Jukdo Islet until the Japanese warship Amagi surveyed Ullengdo in 1880. It is not possible he would include a miniscule rock only 1km long and 2kms from Ulleungdo on such a rough sketch of Asia. That is ridiculou and totally unsubstantiated speculation.

Most importantly, beside Ulleungdo can be seen a form of Saito Hosen's 見高麗如雲州望-州. However "高麗" (koryo) was changed with Chosun "朝鮮" Saito Hosen quote was always put near Ulleungdo and Dokdo for centuries. Check below for some examples.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-dokdomap2-1870.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext2.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg

This is Hayashi's map of Ulleungdo with the same quote but "高麗" (koryo) was changed to Chosun "朝鮮"

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/hyashi-closeup.jpg

Jjok the map Hayashi drew (1785) predates the first Europeans to find Ulleungdo (Dagelet) in 1787 (la Perouse) and Colnett's Argonaut of 1789. The real mapping confusion of this region didn't really start until Seibolds maps of the region labelled Argonaut as Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Dagelet as Matushima (Dokdo)Clownface (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Clownface (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. This is your original reserch. As for the history geography in Japan, are you more well informed than PROF.FUNASUGI? Here is Japanese map in 1696.[40]　Can you see MANOSHIMA? And, what did "見高麗如雲州望" of Ulleungdo do? Do though no one points out Ulleungdo? Warship Amagi? This time, is the age patched?　Did the Hayashi refer to information on the century the 20th in the time machine?　--Opp2 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am more well informed than any right-wing nationalist. Odst (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Clownface, Ulleungdo (Dagelet) and Argonaut stuff is mentioning the Gyeongbukdo's map and it is my responsibility to your confusion. Please see the position of Dokdo in the left map. It is weird, isn't it? Maybe, Gyeongbuk provincial authorities are still in Argonaut era. I just wanted to say that we should be careful even when we refer official materials.
Anyway, how are you going to cite the references for Hayashi's map using your resources? That is the question here. I am saying that the ways you and Odst doing are "I saw it on the internet!" style and do not fulfill WP:V, thus we are asking you for other reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna go ahead and wreak further outrage. I happen to be Wikimachine's replacement while he's gone... ^_^ Odst (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jjok, yes Japanese cartographers did map Takeshima (竹島) and Matsushima (松島) in the positions of Argonaut and Dagelet.

The issue is the interpretation of these islands. We know Japanese mapped 竹島 as Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and 松島 as Matsushima (Dokdo) for at least 150 years before Seibold made his maps.

European mapmaker Seibold took incorrect European maps of Argonaut and Dagelet(Ulleungdo mapped twice) and applied the Japanese names of Takeshima and Matsushima to the islands respectively. See this map.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seilbold1840.jpg

From there Japanese mapmakers copied Seibold's positioning and naming. Such as on this map.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchida.jpg

If you look on the map above you can see Saito Hosen's quote 見高麗如雲州望-州 next to 竹島. This shows the Japanese mapmaker (Uchida) considered the 竹島 in Argonaut's position to simply be Ulleungdo and thus not a phantom.

Other maps show this to be true as well. Kashihara Yoshinaga's 1877 map also shows Seibold's positioning. However written next to 竹島 (in Argonaut's position) is "Japanese name Takeshima Korean name Ulleungdo" See this map.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg

On the map above we can read in Gatagana mi-yu-ja-ki next to 松島. This can be interpreted as "viewing point" Most likely a derivative of Saito Hosen's quote claiming Korea was visible from this point.

The issue is this. Japanese say "In maps showing Takeshima and Matsushima in Seibold's positioning Takeshima is a non-existent island and Matsushima is Ulleungdo Island..." They are saying Japanese cartographers knowingly ommited Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) and double-mapped Ulleungdo. On these maps they say Takeshima is a ghost island, but the maps above show they thought Takeshima was Ulleungdo more westerly.

The most plausible answer is Japanese simply followed Seibold's maps and positioned Takeshima and Matsushima in more westerly positions. That's all. Japanese are using the incorrect positioning on these maps to negate Meiji maps and documents that show Japan considered Matsushima (Dokdo) as part of Korea.

Before Opp2 starts blubbering, yes this is my original research.Clownface (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. This is your original reserch. There is no right that you judge the fact. --Opp2 (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, I am not talking about historical maps but map of 2007 we can see here. Did you get it? If I was a Korean, I would protest the government showing such a distorted map....and Hey! you know a nice (18 MB (^_^;)) official document, Dokdo, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 2007-07-18. Why don't you guys cite Korean claims using this reference? I am surprised that they are officially adopting Hayashi's Ulleungdo-Jukdo map and even Sambongdo=Dokdo theory (Sambongdo (three-peaks island) is actually here. You can see the logo with three-peaks). These materials seem prepared heavily based on Prof. Shin Yong-Ha's theories, do they?
By the way, Clownface uploaded this image (this is also a funny theory) from the reference but I think documents prepared by Korean officials except such as laws and congress reports are not public domain (ko:퍼블릭도메인) and the image is violating the copy right. I do not know why it is tagged as PD-US.--Jjok (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jjok says "Why don't you guys cite Korean claims using this reference...?

Who exactly are "Us guys...?" Jjok. And does that make you one of "those guys"?

Listen, if you have any problem with the accuracy of what I post please feel free to refute it or post contrary data and cite it for verification. I do support Korea's claim to Dokdo but it doesn't mean I'm in the back pocket of Gyeonsanbukdo government.

Actually, they have approached me to link to my website and they are more that welcome to increase the exposure of my website but that's about as far as I go to support Korea's claim.

I don't buy everything that comes down the pike from the Korean government. I try to post clear documents and then give historical context. Korean and Japanese alike should be careful when using ancient Chosun documents as proof of anything unless it's clear. That's why the 2005 Murakawa documents are so important.

Regarding the copyright status, this image is on Korea's Dokdo brochure and I've listed the source. I don't know why anyone who is interested in this subject would want such a useful image removed.

Hayashi's map shows an island next to Ulleungdo. It is a major reach to think Hayashi included a tiny rock (1kms long) that is only situated 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo on a map of Northeast Asia.

If we do buy Japanese lobbyists theories. At the very least, this map would be proof positive Japan excluded Matsushima (Dokdo) as part of Japan and considered Oki Island as the limit of her territory. This concurs with 99.9% of Japanese national maps up to 1905 when they annexed Dokdo, never mind the Japanese maps that show Matsushima as Korean land.Clownface (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

US federal documents are public domain but most of SK official documents are not except such as laws and congress reports (ko:퍼블릭도메인). I do not mind much about the notability of the map but I mind the copyright status of which you are putting a fake copyright tag PD-US (I also did not find PD-KR tag), because WP:copyvio endangers whole Wikipedia. Have anyone asked Gyeonsanbukdo government for sending the permission to Wikipedia? If you want to copy their materials, the permission of Gyeonsanbukdo government should have been sent to Wikipedia.
I also do not mind what you buy, Japanese or Korean lobbyists theories, pro-Japan, chinilpa, KPOV, JPOV, and USPOV. I mind each of the descriptions is appropriately backed-up by WP:reliable sources (and your site or gol.com are obviously not). If you want to do this kind of revert,[41] please use reliable sources you have known instead of some gol.com stuff. It is totally Ok to describe KPOVs using reliable sources (actually, I am recommending the way), however, descriptions based unreliable sources will be deleted even though they are NPOV. You can see the description under the edit window.

Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*.

You also need to allow the descriptions of Japanese lobbyists theories satisfying WP:V, however, the discussion about the verifiability is highly welcomed. I understand that Pro-Japan is definitely evil and intolerable in Korean society and all Koreans and every conscionable people in the world should help poor Korea and fight against evil Japan, but here is a some different place and you have to admit the presence of pro-Japan, chinilpa, and Japanese (extreme) right-wing who follow Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. You have to point out which policies are violated in cases instead of accusation using those words.--Jjok (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Readjust discussion

I think that it is necessary to readjust a discussion. The present description is the followings,

Following the diplomatic spat in the seventeenth century, the Sangoku setsujozu ("A Map of Three Adjoining Countries"), a map attached to the Sangoku tsuran zusetsu ("An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries") was compiled by Hayashi Shihei (1738--1793) and published in 1785. The map shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is depicted in yellow and Japan in green. On the map are tewo islets, presumably Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Though not properly identified, the islets are located at the correct latitude and longitude, colored in yellow. Along next the drawings are words inscribed "Korea's possessions."
In the Dainihonzu ("Map of Great Japan"), another map attached to An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries, Hiyashi also treated Ulleungdo and the Liancourt rocks as Korean territory in an explanatory note. In the latter part of the 18th century, a Japanese geographer made a map called Soezu ("A Complete Illustrated Map") which uses colors to distinguish national borders and territories: Korea in yellow and Japan in red. These islands were not identified by name, but are shown in yellow in their accurate positions and described as "Korea's possessions."

The present description (adding under line) seems to be biased surely as Opp2 pointed out. Opp2 had presented a citation (Japanese), which is a professor Funasugi's reports. This reports say that "Two islands were drawn by Sihei Hayashi, those islands are considered to be Ullung-do and Jukdo." However, the present description is asserting those to be Ullung-do and Liancourt Rock with this source [42].

It is not Opp2's statement but Japanese professor's. I'm not sure whether that island is Liancourt rock or not. But I'm sure present description is unilaterally and violated WP:OR. Therefore, I'm going to revice the present description.--Gettystein (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Odst, Where is description Mr.Funasugi's argument? Sorry, I don't understand your reason. Moreover, your version is crealy violating WP:OR as I mentioned above. Please read WP:OR.--Gettystein (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
what the hell are you talking about?? Why don't you read WP:OR again... I don't think wp:or has any provisions for any published work of sorts. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you undetstand WP:OR and WP:NPOV correctly?
  • presumably Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Though not properly identified, the islets are located at the correct latitude and longitude
Who presumed that it is Ullung-do and Dokdo? You?
  • Hiyashi also treated Ulleungdo and the Liancourt rocks as Korean territory in an explanatory note
Why do you know Hayashi shihei's intention?
  • shown in yellow in their accurate positions and described as "Korea's possessions."
What is "their accurate positions"? Who decided that it was the "accurate positions"?
Do you think that those descriptions are not unilateral? If you think so, your edits may have a serious defect. Please read back carefuly without having a prejudice. --Gettystein (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about Fusanagi... My edits are based on the references cited, and not directly attributing to Fusanagi's research. Your edit claimed that Hiyashi actually identified ulleungdo. I am under the impression that it was not identified. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit is based on only Shin-yongha who is the South Korean scholar. Moreover, the major of Shin-yongha is neither a history nor a geography. Moreover, it is considerably old. Do you have the ability that the Japanese historian's insistence can be denied? Only the thesis of a convenient scholar for you is quoted, and an inconvenient thesis is refused. Is this NPOV and fact why? --Opp2 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Odst, did you see the clear image of Sangoku setsujozu which was showed by Opp2 ? [43] If you had seen it, maybe you were able to identify the written upside down characters "竹嶋" on the bigger island. In the 18th century, the characters "竹嶋" meant Ullung-do in Japan. In my guess, Getystein is thinking that you know it.--W/mint-Talk- 11:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed the writing before. You don't need to explain to me chinese... I'm lit. Well that's kinda screwed up... Jukdo is actually a small island right next to Ulleungdo. Now the Japanese are calling Dokdo Jukdo, which is even more screwed up... Is there an explanation to this excessive incoherence? Honestly, I don't give a shit about Shin or Fusanagi, much less that speck of an island Takeshima and those whining Korean and Japanese nationalists... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

original researching and POV-pushing

Opp, I hope you know that nobody cares anymore about your research and other stuff. We aren't here to interpret documents and/or interpret them in your own way. If you're here to attempt to add information that is full of OR, its not gonna be up there for long. Wikipedia is not a place for you to make new threads everyday about what you think should be done and how you see the documents in your own way. So please, for the last time, try something productive. Good friend100 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am presenting scholar's second source. You do not only see it. Your means have already been exposed. After all, you want only to exclude the Japanese　interpretation. It is POV-pushing to exclude the Japanese insistence though the second source is presented. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
For instance, I am presenting the source of Prof. FUNASUGI in this edit[44]. His specialty is a historical geography. Is this OR? Do you have the right to deny Prof. Funasugi, Prof.Daijyudo, Prof.Serita and Prof. Shimojyo?--Opp2 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp, Japanese records show thier government didn't even know Jukdo Islet existed until 1880.124.80.111.109 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This Map was sent by Kotani to Edo.[45] Can you see Manoshima? In a Japanese map at that time, Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) is being written in Takeshima's(Ulleungdo) southeast. Is there a Japanese map that wrote Matsushima in the north of Ullengdo at that time? By the way, the map of the Hayashi became an issue prohibition from the shogunate because it was inaccurate. Why can you predicable the island without name in such a map? --Opp2 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And, pressing such "Korean Presumption with Original Reserch" like this is POVpusshing. --Opp2 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is enough information presented from the Japanese side. Unlike how you see it, the article is roughly neutral in terms of information presented from each side. What you are trying to do is prove that Japan has a right to the islets, which is not the point of editing Wikipedia. You obviously think that the islets are Japanese territory and are fruitlessly trying to get your message through, something most people don't care about. Trying to include information from Japanese historians with Japanese views is acceptable, but it doesn't mean that it can be used as in your case (trying to prove that Liancourt is Japanese territory).

I really don't get why you think that this article is biased. I don't see any glaring Korean bias in the article. You got more than enough by having the article moved. So again, do something productive. Good friend100 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point is always abstract. Are not you criticizing me by your subjectivity? Please point it out concretely. --Opp2 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
opp2, you need to understand that this is an encyclopedia, not your school research paper. I think an article should comprise of facts regardless of POV matters. Even then, as good friend100 has said, there are no kpov sentiments. Just because it isn't jpov doesn't mean it's kpov. Odst (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather, his responses are just lame. Where does "abstract" and "subjectivity" come into this? I don't get what your logic is. Clearly, I'm right and you have nothing to say. So please stop POV-pushing. Good friend100 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

your POV bickering is pointless. We want to place facts, despite what POV it conflicts with. iluvbees (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that your NPOV and POV pushing meaens "Korean interpretation is absolute fact and Japanese interpretation can not admit." I am never insisting that we should delete Korean interpretation. Why do you fear the Japanese interpretation so much?--Opp2 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't; I simply have no concern for revisionist bs... What makes you think the interpretation in the article is just "korean interpretation", as you say? I've stated it before, and I'll state it again: Simply because it conflicts with jpov in no way means that the an article can be deemed Pov, or as you like to call it "korean interpretation". <o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)>

!

I figured that it would be a waste of time having to argue an bicker with opp2. so I think I'll go about on a unilateral rampage... I'm too lazy to combat the arguments set by opp2, so I think I'll just sit tight and ignore his wonderful comments. Odst (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have understood there are no rational reasons in your rv.. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
hmm, then I question your level of understanding. Your welcome. Odst (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what's funny? Takeshima happens to be Jukdo. Odst (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have understood there are no rational reasons in your rv and POV pushing. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have understood that there are no rational reasons in your jpov edits. And you're welcome, you flatter me too much. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

...in Popular Culture

Much as I dislike "... in pop culture" sections, for what it's worth: If there is anything similar at this article, it might be worth noting that the 1997 South Korean film, No. 3 has a very funny scene concerning the Takeshima/Dokdo controversy. Japanese and Korean gangsters are meeting at a Room-Salon together when a loud argument breaks out between them over the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima. Dekkappai (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that movie, but it can't possibly be funnier than this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks-- I'll check it out later, Hong. I give the movie a middling review-- a little heavy-handed for me. The Takeshima/Dokdo bickering between the gangsters gave me a laugh anyway. Cheers. Dekkappai (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Good old Robo Taekwon-V to the rescue! Who is that he fights? Mazinger Zed? I still say the gangster argument in the movie was funnier though. Dekkappai (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I now officially propose that we move this article to the name Duk Dou, which is the Chinese name for the island in pinyin. I anticipate that I will have unanimous support for this. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A good solution to keep both sides equally unhappy. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually HQG, People who side with Korea on this issue would probably have no problem with that, as thats the Chinese pronunciation of the characters used for Tokdo. The people who side with the Japanese would probably be okay if you wanted to relocate this page to Jukdo or whatever bamboo island is in Chinese. Bethereds (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeojiji

Yeojiji was assumed the loss. However, apograph of the Yeojiji was discovered by Prof. Sang-Hak Oh(呉尚学) of Cheju National University(済州大学) recently. The quotation of Yeojiji that recorded in Man 'gi yoram turned out a lie.[46] Therefore, the description of the following articles becomes wrong, too. --Opp2 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Man'gi yoram ("Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the earlier Yeojiji ("Gazette") that Ulleungdo and Usando all belonged to Usan'guk and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima, i.e., present Liancourt Rocks.

Opp2's 1RR violation

You claim that I violated "Slow it down", well I surely read your "assumption" and reference, so your bad faith is not tolerable. I can state you've been not only violating 'your so-call rule', but also, All uncooperative editing, Blatant POV, Edit summaries. Before making any change, you need to show your "willingness to cooperate with others", but you didn'. In addition, you violated 1RR rule obviously (adding is also making a change so that it is certainly considered as a reverting on this highly controversial article). This is for the record. --Appletrees (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please point it out concretely.Looks like follows.
  • 00:15, 23 December 2007 Appletrees[47]
  • 00:00, 23 December 2007 Opp2[48]
You reverted only 15 minutes after my edit. Then your revert is violate flollowing rule clealy.
Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).

Can you understand? You had concretely to have pointed out the problem of my edit at this page before revert. Though, my edit is based on scholar's report and a transcript of Yeojiji cannot be erased. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever your own rule you say, you're not the scholar and you certainly violated all of the new rules. I wonder why you're active now, because some Korean editor was infinitely blocked by the admin for disruptive editing, even though he just made several editing, but you always bring out more than controversial uncooperative edits. --Appletrees (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you emotional why? Please state concretely and cool down. My edit is based on scholar's thesis. And I am presenting the source. Why do you try to exclude Japanese Interpretation by Japanese scholar? Do you have the ability that the Japanese theory can be denied?--Opp2 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop now? I'm tired of this cycle that you force everyone else through. Just stop. Your edits are both POV-pushing and make no sense grammatically. Others have to clean up after your edits (if those edits are even fair enough to be up there). You can't justify including information because its sourced. 100% of the time your wording pushes the neutrality of the article. Good friend100 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased with the cleanup of the grammar. However, I will permit neither exclusion of the Japanese interpretation nor pressing the Korean interpretation as a fact. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Permit? haha, Opp2, you're surely not in the position to "permit" anything.--Appletrees (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sory. It is a rule of Wikipedia that takes the POV balance. Do you think that the exclusion of the Japanese interpretation is NPOV?--Opp2 (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about that... Would it be acceptable if the neo-nazis put up their povs in the holocaust article? I think not... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ogasawara case and Japanese contradiction theory

The following descriptions are based on the thesis of Myung-Ki Kim.

notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of the Liancourt rocks 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. (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.)

Even Wikimachine admitted the inaccuracy of this thesis of Myung-Ki Kim.

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

Therefore, I added the opinion of another Korean scholar and Japanese scholar for POV balance. (Even if it is "obtuse", I do not exclude Korean scholar's opinion for NPOV. Do not misunderstand me.) --Opp2 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, but I don't really like your poor grammar. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You can correct the grammar of my edit. However, you cannot retouch POV-balance. Thank you agreeing with my edit policy. --Opp2 (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall agreeing with your edit policy at all, opp2. Thank you for trying to put your words in my mouth, but i must kindly refuse... I don't like your edit policy, nor will I ever in the next 2 or 3 millennia... I prefer sticking to raw logic, unlike this. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Then, do you want to press the Korean interpretation as a fact? Is this NPOV for you? --Opp2 (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ive stated this before, and i'll do it again... just because it conflicts with jpov does not necessarily mean it coflicts with npov. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I understood you were not able to do a concrete point. --Opp2 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
all you need is some logic, my friend. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This Page Needs Moderation

Seriously, this page is turning into a joke and I half to laugh when I read what it has digressed into lately.

This page needs a real cleaning up and to remove some of the POV's.

It's slowly turning into "Japanese scholars says, but Korean scholars say"... or "Professor Yamanaka says...." but "Professor Kim says.."

The broken English and poor grammar shows this article has spiralled from a source of information into a debate forum for Japanese and Korean lobbyists. What a sham!!Clownface (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, you're right... I can't help but credit this to our good friend opp2... though I'm also partly to blame... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of a present description is based on the Korean interpretation like the fact about the matter that the interpretation conflicts. That is, it is an article on stronger KPOV-pushing according to concealment, the exclusion of the Japanese interpretation, and pretend to NPOV. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

there's nothing to thank me for, since I have no idea what you are ranting on about. My edits will remain unilateral, and I don't care if you have to bring in the arbcomm for this. Rather, I think I should bring them in for your incursions... that's too bad, since i might get blocked for being very rude... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Get on the same page Opp2

Nobody is here to suppress Japanese interpretations. No one here is pushing a Korean POV. Get your facts straight instead of saying what you wish is happening right now. I don't see any editors here attempting to include biased information that supports Korea. In fact I don't see anyone here participating in editing this article except you, and several editors attempting to keep this article as neutral as they can. I'm sure most people are tired of this.

We all know that you hate Korea. We all know that you want the islets to be under Japanese control. We all know you want to express your feelings. We all know that you are trying to get your message out to readers that Japan has a right to the islets. BUT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THAT!

Writing down what you think happened here and what you think should be done, and what you think what happened 500 years ago is not the place for you to come and attempt to insert in the article.

How many times do we have to tell you that inserting biased information cannot be justified because of sources. The article is starting to become a list of "Such and such thinks that..." and "Such and such writes that...".

The islets are in dispute and I'm sure sensible readers can see that. Simply by seeing that this article itself is aptly named "Liancourt Rocks" they know that there is an attempt by wikipedians to keep this article neutral. And I'm sure if they even want to read about the islets, that they know about the dispute.

Nobody here is restricting you to edit the article. What you can't do is POV-pushing. Good friend100 (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, do you press only the Korean interpretation as a fact? Is it NPOV for you? The following descriptions is based on Korean scholar's thesis. The Japanese interpretation is different from this. Isn't it POV-pusshing to write only the Korean interpretation as a fact like this description for you?　
notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of the Liancourt rocks 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. (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.)
You are always conceptual. Your point doesn't have concreteness. Therefore, your opinion is not constructive. Please prove the above descriptions based on Korean interpretation is NPOV and only the Japanese interpretation becomes POV-pusshing. If you cannot do it, you only press the Korean interpretation as NPOV and you are biased. --Opp2 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Opp2 I think you are a bit on the sensitive side with the words... relax, It wouldn't take an idiot to figure out what the big picture is... that is, without your (poorly written) pov edits... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,I am relaxing. Your point doesn't have concreteness too. Please point it out concretely more. Or, cannot you do a concrete point? --Opp2 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I could only say it takes an open mind, not a nationalism-motivated one. sorry that I dont have much time to refute your edits. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I understood you were not able to do a concrete point. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

!

Korean scholer, Japanese Scholer, ewww... it's scholar, by the way. Who the hell are these ridiculous scholer scholar people? They could be revisionist hoodlums, for only god knows. good friend100 is right, this article really needs some cleanup. I'm gonna look into some of this stuff for some more clarification. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, shall we select the Japanese scholar's interpretation as a fact? If you agree to my proposal, we should not write "Korean scholer,Japanese Scholer" anymore. --Opp2 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
no, no revisionist moron should be ever recognized as a scholar in the first place... the "korean scholar", whoever he is, happens to place a logical argument on the table, and also happens to perpetually agree with just about every intelligent being on this planet. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
revisionist? Do you decide it?Do you classify the scholar? Though you cannot point out issues concretely, are you a highest authority of the world? I am very surprised now.--Opp2 (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It would not take an idiot to figure the absurdity of this so-called scholar. Place and authority has no meaning when it comes to logic. Let's see, for example. The "scholar" says that Dokdo, the only visible island from the mainland besides Ulleungdo, is actually supposed to be jukdo. Jukdo is four kilometers east of Ulleungdo, and there is no place in Kanghwa or gyeongsang, where you can actually see Jukdo. That leaves Dokdo, which actually can be seen off the coast, next to Ulleungdo. this perpetually proves that Dokdo is actually Usando. You see, when idiots are nagging without giving up, ignoring clear refutations, other researchers have no choice but to ignore them in turn. you see what I mean? I have more to point out, but now I'm sleepy. Merry Christmas. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
lol, Who is? I do not know the scholar who presumes the record in 1400's to Jukdo from the distance. Kawakami assumes doubled Ulleungdo. Shimojo's claim is not based on the interpritation of distance. Prof. Funasugi also is judging that Usando at that time is confused Ulleungdo.[49] The record that 86 people live there is main evidence. It is after Ahn's event that the Japanese scholar presumes Usando to Jukdo. This is because the geography recognition of Usando of Korea's maps etc. was changed. Do not you know Usando in Korean maps moved from the west of Ulleungdo to east after Ahn's event? Please teach the Japanese scholar's name and thesis. --Opp2 (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition,"南峯稍卑 風日清明 則峯頭樹木及山根沙渚 歴歴可見" Do you look clear a tree away at 92km? Do you see the tree though there is no tree at the island? Poor thing!! The Korean scholar and government become revisionist based on your logic. --Opp2 (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, Korean scholars say Ahn's Usando is Dokdo because the Japanese records say Anyongbok's distance was 50ri. This is definitely NOT Jukdo. Do you see where we are going? You want to turn this page into a debate forum and include all JPOV and KPOV and to give each sides interpretattion of every piece of historical data related to Laincourt Rocks. This is B.S.

This artilce needs to be cleaned up ASAPClownface (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

He is answering the distance between Ulleungdo and Korea as 30 ris. Actually, it is 140km. Then, when this distance feeling of him is applied to 50 ris, it becomes 233km(140km/30ri*50ri). By the way, the distanse between Liancourt Rocks and Ulleungdo are 92km. The distanse between Oki and Ulleungdo are 245km. In addition, did you read 竹島紀事 and 邊例集要? After the source is arranged, I will retouche the article.--Opp2 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no point in arguing with you, since you are already clearly motivated in your twisted

thinking... ah, what a pity... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

!!

Opp2 is annoying me a lot, and I am ready to bring in arbcom to clean up this mess. Opp2, I understand where you are trying to go with this, but your poor grammar and inability to present controversial topics discretely is taking its toll. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack. Please present the source. And, please continue a gentleman discussion. --61.209.168.242 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing anyone by your bad faith, dear anon with the Japanese ip address. I've seen Opp2 saying so many personal insults against Korean editors such as "mentally unstable", "emotional", and so forth. You need to face what is really going on here. Odst's opinion is correct in the light of Opps writings. And what is "a gentleman discussion"? Are you purposely excluding "ladies" on this talk page? Please behave like a "gentleman" or "lady". Just like Odst's opinion, this page is needed to go to the Arbitration committee again.--Appletrees (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Appletrees, Please do not become emotional. Even if you abuse him as toll and revisionist, the correctness of your insistence is not proven. You should point out the mistake of the insistence on Opp2. The fact of the history never changes by his character. For instance, cannot you trust his source? --61.209.168.242 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
61.209.168.242, please don't be a lier and troll as you abuse this talk page with your wrong frames. You're the person being "emotional" right now with no logic per your wordings. I just said my agreement with Odst's "right" opinion and your wonderful comment on "gentleman discussion". Don't be emotional and be a "gentleman" with common sense. Your refraining from framing innocent people will be much help for this article. --Appletrees (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,61.209.168.242 Perhaps, I think that they cannot do a concrete point even if it asks them. An abstract point of OR and POV is done, and the grammar is pointed out at the end. This is the same one year ago. This is the same as Wikimachine too. The maximum and final reason why they should exclude me seems to be a grammar now. Therefore, I am gladder of the correction of the grammar than an abstract discussion here.--Opp2 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit excluded the Japanese interpretation. I restored your correction about "grammar" as much as possible. I will want you to divide the edit of the content from the grammar because it is very troublesome. Thank you.--Opp2 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, you don't have any sense of logical thinking, and considering this anonymous user's grammatical structure, I'd like to say it is you. Look, Wikipedia aims to place a fluid compendium of reliable facts, and it is in no way a table for testification for any party of sorts. Your Shumane prefecture reference is in no way a reliable resource for fact. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

please ignore Opp2

You guys are making things worse by arguing. The article is under watch by arbcom and its impossible for Opp2 to make any kind of POV-pushing to the article that would result in an edit war. We don't need people telling Opp that he's wrong.

Frankly, I think that he doesn't fully understand how controversial articles like this one is run. Saying that the article is pro-Korean because he can't add any of his POV-pushing projects in it is wrong. This article is not biased toward any side at all.

Just stop arguing with him. This is getting so immature. In fact why am I even here. Good friend100 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand you are shocking. You believed Korean one-sided interpretation as a fact and NPOV, because the Japanese interpretation was excluded. However, you learnt it now. Because the your complex collapsed, you seem to be confused. You are doing an abstract criticism and personal attack like this for the confusion. You should cool. I hope you get well soon.--Opp2 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah, sorry to say this, but your point of view is too narrow for this sort. your edits simply base upon arguments, and not facts. Disputed or not, I don't think the entire Jewish holocaust article focuses on dispute and denial. Does the article take turns foolishly in every paragraph addressing the arguments of both parties? In an encyclopedia, there is no such thing as pov balance. It is clearly childish and confusing, puzzling the reader unfamiliar with the topic. WP:POV has only provisions for presenting facts in euphemism and/or proven concepts. Just because it conflicts with a single arguing party does not necessarily violate npov. Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea. Your edits are simply non-constructive and inconclusive, and to add to further outrage, I don't think anyone appreciates your sly methods of indirect provocation. You seriously annoy the shit out of me, and the only reason I am here arguing with you is because I want to take any action to prevent further incursions without having to report you for arbitration. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
WOW! What an extreme POV! --Opp2 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you can think of saying? poor, poor, fella... Do you even read my messages? I honestly think you are not getting the point. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The insistence on Opp2 is POV

Odst insists on "The insistence on Opp2 is POV" Odst explained that "Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea." was a reason. However, this insistence is not well-grounded. Odst should promptly present grounds. And, please request the rebuttal from Opp. Odst was called "Opp was revisionist's Trawl and childish". However, it is a useless conversation to this article. I expect Odst to banish Opp by the discussion. Then, please present grounds that prove "Perpetually the entire world believes that Dokdo/Takeshima rightfully belongs to the Republic of Korea". --211.3.113.58 (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not intend to discuss which evidence and the interpretation are correct. When only either interpretation will be selected, it will destroy the POV balance and the edit war is generated. Therefore, my insistence is easy. Both interpretations should be introduced under the equal condition. They seem to be confident of the Korean interpretation. In that case, I do not understand why they try to exclude the Japanese interpretation. If an absurd Japanese interpretation is described, it becomes advantageous for them. Therefore, I feel their edits and personal attacks in this page very mysterious.--Opp2 (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
that was not the point, Opp2. Read the whole thing again. The sentence you quoted with what I think is your sockpuppet was simply an example to explain my point in pov concepts. I don't have to go into detail, and I won't, since you fail to understand the addressed point. Also, there is no such thing as a pov balance in an encyclopedia. Is that so hard to understand? Please stop your arbitrary actions and think over where you tripped. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the disputed Joseon/edo period section. Opp2, I would like you to address the pov statements and suggest your pov "balance", here. I have taken it upon myself to help you make your edits without messing up the fluidity of the article... Now, if you can kindly cooperate... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Odst cannot concretely point out the mistake of Opp2, he might do personal attack. --Orchis29 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
congratulations on creating your first legitimate sockpuppet!!! May you live forever. I hope that it will help YOU concretely justify out your own mistakes... What personal attack? it's called constructive criticism... hmm, I don't see you concretely pointing out facts, either, slyly evading refutations. Well, that closes the lid on you; I don't feel like talking to you anymore. happy new year! o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Odst, You do not suffice consideration. You should not call the hated user sockpuppet. You do not suffice consideration. And, you are emotional. This is your fault. You should be conscious of this fault. --Orchis29 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A map about treaty of San Francisco

Islands in the treaty of San Francisco.

I added a map about islands of the SF treaty. Please point out the mistake of the grammar of the caption. I will correct, and update it. --Opp2 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1. "desclibed as a island renounced by Japan"
2."silent as a island renounced by Japan and Japanese island now"
3."silent as a island renounced ny Japan and Korean island now"
can be replaced with the following:
1. * Currently ROK territory; Islands renounced as Japanese territory
2. * Currently Japanese territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty
3. * Currently ROK territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty

also, the Liancourt rocks can be classified as " Currently ROK territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty", or if you don't like that, I don't mind you putting a #4, which would be sumthin' like this: *Disputed by Korea and Japan o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"explanatory note" can be replaced with "key" or "legend". o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with o.d.s.t's revision.

Opp we are onto you. You are trying to slyly insert the Japanese definition of the S.F. Peace Treaty that unless the islands were renounced Korea cannot claim Liancourt. This is JPOV.

The caption should state the facts. LIANCOURT ROCKS WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE S.F. PEACE TREATY. That is the fact free of POV.Clownface (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sory, It is Korean interpretation. "LIANCOURT ROCKS WAS NOT MENTIONED as renounce island by Japan" This is fact. --Opp2 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
how can it be a fact when it makes no sense at all? as renounce island by japan?? what is that supposed to mean? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I retouched. Extra information was deleted. --Opp2 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, But it still isn't good enough... o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

SF treaty mention "Korea(朝鮮 in Japanese version)" not "Republic of Korea".--Mochi (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the map. There were hundred of islands along the Korean coast that were "renounced" by Japan but not mentioned in the S.F. Treaty. The caption should be as o.s.d.t. mentioned above. If the map is posted as above I'll revert.Clownface (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, other posters told you the legend to your map was misleading. We had offered appropriate alternatives but still you tried to force this map so it was deleted. Please don't violate the terms of this page and only post was is agreed upon124.80.111.109 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

Opp2 I'm tired of you slying editing the San Francisco Peace Treaty portion of this page and trying to turn historical fact into POV. There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Opp2. Stop being so slimy by trying to assert this is a Korean interpretation. The entire text of the treaty is below. If you can find one syllable that mentions Liancourt Rocks we can enter this data. Otherwise STOP vandalizing this fact.Clownface (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

however,It is significant to writing details not treated by the SF Treaty and the section is created by me.Opp2 is unrelated of making of this section.Please stop the personal attack. --Forestfarmer (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing and framing editors on the other side of making personal attacks. It does NOT have any significant meaning to include SF Treaty because of its irrelevant subject to this article. Your false accusation is not a constructive behavior to improve Wikipedia. Please refrain from leaving disruptive comments here.--Appletrees (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that point Appletrees. The San Francisco Peace Treaty had absolutely no bearing on the territorial sovereignty over Liancourt Rocks. The U.S. dropped the issue like a hot potato when it became a serious issue. It is the Japanese Takeshima Lobbyists such as Opp2 who are trying to insert confidential memorandums such as the Rusk papers because they want readers here to believe the U.S. was the moral authority in this matter.

Forestfarmer, if it is you who keeps manipulating this passage I suggest you stop or provide a reason for what amounts to vandalism on this page. Stop changing fact into POV or back up what you say with citations. I'm sick of reverting this passage I've already had to change it back three times. Please tell us on what basis do you feel it is a Korean POV that there is no mention of Liancourt Rocks on the S.F. Peace Treaty.Clownface (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistently poor use of English in this article

This article is written in the English language, and is part of the English Wikipedia, but many contributions are made by editors whose knowledge and understanding of that language is imperfect. Would there be any purpose in either of the following changes as a matter of policy: (a) deletion of all sections in Korean or Japanese characters (without regard to nationality or personal position of original editor), as these are not intelligible to English-speakers; although leaving quotations from either language which have been transliterated; and/or (b) correction of grammar and spelling in the article to reflect standard English usage?

Or would either of these be a waste of time given the incessant edit wars in this article? It would be pointless, for example, to correct the syntax of a sentence which is then edit-warred again and again and again on its substance.

Would regular editors like to vote on the adoption of either or both of these policies? Abstention might suggest a lack of willingness to engage with readers who are neither Japanese nor Korean.

And a happy New Year to one and all from Scotland! ariwara (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN by ICJ article64 p36 “The Court further recalls that it stated above that the words "the islets belonging thereto" can only be interpreted as referring to the small islands lying in the immediate vicinity of the three islands which are mentioned by name, and not to islands which are located at a distance of more than 40 nautical miles.” [50]
  2. ^ 芹田健太郎（Prof. Serita Kentaro）日本の領土p159 “もし、鬱陵島から約90キロメートルも離れた離れた孤島である竹島を朝鮮領として認める意図があったのであるとすれば、朝鮮本土からやや離れている巨文島が条約中に明記されたように、そのことを明記しておかなければならなかったであろう。”
  3. ^ ＜ref>大壽堂鼎(Prof. Daijyudo Kanae)　領土帰属の国際法p149 “平和条約はいかに戦勝国が敗戦国に強制するものとはいえ、敗戦国は同意した範囲外の事項についてまで拘束されないことは言うまでもない(It is natural that the defeated country is not restrained about a matter outside the her consent though the peace treaty is what the victorious country compels it to the defeated country.)”
  4. ^ PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie “The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war.”
  5. ^ CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION　AND TERRITORIAL QUESTIONS　BETWEEN QATAR AND BAHRAIN by ICJ; See article 107, 146, 147 and 148 [51]
  6. ^ 芹田健太郎（Prof. Serita Kentaro）中央公論2006年11月号　p273-274 “（カタールとバーレーンの判例紹介）したがって、連合国を主導した米国の前述の記述は極めて大きな意味を持ち、国際司法裁判所で竹島問題が審議されれば、同裁判所の判例の動向から推察して米国の判断は日韓両国を拘束すると判示する蓋然性は高いと韓国の専門家も考えるからである。((Introduction of judicial precedent of ICJ and Rusk documents)…..Then the records of the above-mentioned of the U.S. that initiated the Allies have significance effect. If Takeshima is discussed in International Court of Justice, from the judicial precedent, the possibility to be judged that the judgment of the United States restrains the Japan-South Korea is high. The Korean specialist will also think so.)”
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_16&oldid=1136904463"