Because of the historically tendentious and controversial nature of the Liancourt Rocks dispute, this article is under Standard Discretionary Sanctions following a decision by the Arbitration Committee. Any user who disrupts this article may be subject to an immediate article ban by any Administrator. To avoid running into trouble you are requested to observe the following rules of engagement at all times
All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. Any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer would know it would 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 not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and discussed on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least eight hours before reverting them (if you must).
No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that, if another editor disagrees with your edit, the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinstated unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit. (This does not apply to obvious vandalism).
Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing around the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese", etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japan Sea"/"East Sea", "Liancourt Rocks"/"Dokdo", etc., are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted at once, per the above points. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this.
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.
Tendentious, overlong or nonconstructive repetitive arguing on the talk page is not permitted. Disruptive edits of this kind may be removed by an administrator and persistent offenders are liable to being banned from further contribution to the article or article talk page.
If you wish to discuss these conditions, you should leave a message below or contact an administrator familiar with the history of this article. Currently this includes NeilN, Nihonjoe, Spartaz, and/or Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please note that any uninvolved administrator is welcome to participate, though first becoming familiar with the history of this and related articles is helpful.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Sea of Japan - maybe we should mention East Sea?
Every now and then someone tries to add East Sea somewhere here. Maybe we could add a footnote to the Sea of Japan first use in lead, one that would mention an alternate name exists? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, apparently we actually have a naming guideline, based on some ancient "vote" (from 2005, about as ancient as that on Gdanzigk) that says we should use parenthetical "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" on first mention in an article of this scope (see WP:NC-SoJ). We used to follow this convention here until some time ago, when User:Kintetsubuffalo removed it with an edit summary of "MOS" . I'm not sure what MOS rule he/she was thinking of; maybe there are conflicting rules states somewhere? In any case, I personally would call into question if that old vote is still valid and in line with actual naming practices. As far as I can see it is simply not true that there are "alternative names" – at least not in normal English, outside the wishful thinking of Korean nationalists. I might be proved wrong, but as far as I can see, except in the context of humoring the antics of people who wish to change a language that isn't even their own, the actual name in English seems to be quite overwhelmingly and exclusively "Sea of Japan", and using anything other than that in Wikipedia seems little more than a symbolic act of bowing down before the POV demands of a national faction. But of course I won't object to somebody restoring that parenthesis, if that indeed turns out to be current state of guidelines. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In Wikipedia, Dokdo is located in the Sea of Japan, not East Sea. Dokdo is the territory of the Republic of Korea and there is historical evidence about it.In the history of the Republic of Korea, in the year 512, when King Ji-hyeon was in his custody, the General of the Shilla dynasty wanted to make the Umbrella (now Dokdo and Ulleungdo) into Shilla territory, and the Isabi cut down trees to make lions, The people of the Uri Party surrendered, scaring the people in the area, and from then on, the Umbrella (Dokdo, Ulleungdo) became the territory of the Republic of Korea.
But today Japan is making a ridiculous claim. For example, it is claimed that Japan used Dokdo as a place to fish near Ulleungdo since the 1600s, which claims Dokdo is Japanese territory.
But as I said before, Dokdo is the territory of the Republic of Korea.The illegal fishing in the 1600s is blatantly referred to as Japanese land.Japan, which was decisively defeated in World War II, signed the San Francisco Strengthening Treaty with the United States, Britain and China in 1951.
It is said that the Treaty gives back the land of the Republic of Korea that Japan has forcibly taken away.However, Japan is categorically stating that there is no such statement in this treaty as returning Dokdo.But then the logic is not right.Dokdo is also a land of the Republic of Korea, and the territory of the Republic of Korea, which Japan has forcibly taken away, includes Dokdo.However, since there is no statement that Dokdo will not be returned, Dokdo should be acknowledged as the territory of the Republic of Korea, which is the territory of the Republic of Korea, which Japan has forcibly taken away.
Now Wikipedia is marking the location of Dokdo as 'Sea of Japan'.This distorts the history of the Republic of Korea.In this regard, Wikipedia asks you to mark the "Sea of Japan" as "East Sea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current article states Kim Sung-do's death as being in October 2019 instead of October 2018. Due to the protected nature of the page, I'm unable to edit it, so mention it here. Kobukson (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)