|WikiProject Japan / Politics||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Do not delete "Takeshima"
Do not delete "Takeshima" by the explanation. It is OK because the South Korean opinion is also indicated to one clue like the page of "Ulleung County" , don't you?
At the "See also", I can understand that the change of "Liancourt Rocks" to "dokdo".--Dent2000q 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree.--Junmai 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
we cannot flatly state that dokdo is a part of shimane prefecture when shimane doesn't have ownership, possession, or even access to it, that's just a false statement. dokdo is claimed to be a part of shimane prefecture, so the article should state so. you can delete a mention of dokdo altogether, but not insert a false statement. Appleby 06:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind that deliberately replacing the name with a double-redirect one is not a good thing! Thank you, and have a nice day. Deiaemeth 06:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is an insistence of the South Korean point of view. And Ulleung- county's page is written as "including Dokdo" by the South Korean point of view. NPOV in this problem is to use a same expression both Ulleung-county and Shimane-prefecture. "including" or "not including" both pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celldea (talk • contribs) 10 June 2006.