Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 8

message: THE EDIT HISTORY OF THIS ARCHIVE IS IN Talk:Dokdo/Archive 9 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: # Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

message: I'm going to be inactive for an indefinite duration of time. Therefore, somebody who sees the situation from my point of view must take my place & continue the discussion. Thanks a lot everyone! P.S. Maybe I'll be able to edit on the weekends. (Wikimachine 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is necessary to present the amendment bill, and to pass the discussion here if you want to edit. --Opp2 03:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: I went to the mediation page but there is no information about the contents. Is there anybody who can tell me how it works? Ginnre 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A mediator will open a separate mediation page for discussion. At least, that's what mediation cabal did. (Wikimachine 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does mediation work??? 

message: Opp are you still selling your Japanese propaganda snake oil in a desparate attempt to legitimize the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo in 1905. I hope the administrator of this website can see through your nonsense?.
Everyone who knows the history of Northeast Asia is aware that Japan annexed Dokdo for military purposes during the height of the Russo~Japanese war from 1904~1905. You are trying to base a legal argument on a land acquisition that is flawed in the most basis sense. That is, in order for you to apply all of these legal precedents you must first prove that Japan's motives for taking over the island in 1905 were legitimate.
Do you think that the world community buys into the Japanese Foreign Ministry's assertions that at during a major war between Japan and Korea, Japan felt a sudden need to incorporate Dokdo for the purpose of wacking seals? Stop treating the administrators here like fools Opp2!!.
These pages detail why Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima-2.html
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 January 2007  (UTC)
::It is important whether the Korea empire acquire territorial title based on International Law before 1905, and Russo-Japanese War is legally unrelated. I think that you should delete the fabrication thesis of the notification obligation. --Opp2 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we shouldn't use that site. (Wikimachine 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan annexed Dokdo

message: No offense, but I suspect sockpupetting going b/w Jjok and Opp2. 
Their user edit profile are here and here.
Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.
This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...
Remember, this is only stating the statistics and matters as they are of now. No personal attacks, since our user accounts themselves are anonymous. (Wikimachine 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice is contact an administrator and have them find out for sure before saying anything further. I've worked on some articles where there were mass sockpuppet and meatpuppets. If this is the case, then it should be addressed and stopped. In the event it doesn't, then I'm sure your aware that arbitration would be available. I've been involved in an arbitration case and am willing to help if it comes to that. Davidpdx 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it only has to leave this funny delusion. My provider is IIJ and NIFTY. You?--Opp2 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think Jjok and Opp2 write in similar ways - tone, terrible English, etc. Opp2 always writes "thank you thank you" and Jjok is like "it is my pleasure". (Wikimachine 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetting 

message: An entry from Dokdo appeared on Wikipedia's Lamest edit wars ever in the Ethnic feuds column on January 19, 2007.	
To whom it may concern. A couple pieces of information need to be addressed and corrected with regard to the Japanese Edo Era and what the Japanese define as "effective management" of both Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Matsushima (Dokdo)
In the year 1667 Saito Hosen wrote his report on the Okinoshimas (Oki Islands) and described the islands and their vicinity. Wikipedias abbreviated portion of Saito Hosen you have is as follows....
The quote you have.
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
This translation is incorrect and is obviously from the Japanese side. The Koreans and some Japanese scholars dispute this translation.
Here is the real translation.
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus these(this) island(s) mark(s) the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report on Oki does he say "Ulleungdo" is the Northwest boundary of Japan's territory he simply says "this island" or "these islands." It is not plausible that Saito Hosen used "these two islands" as Japan's boundary because Takeshima (then Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are 90kms away from each other in line and on a Westerly direction away from Oki. A 90km wide boundary?
Saito Hosen defined Japan's boundary based on what territory was visible from which area. You can see he says "thus......these islands......" Because Korea was visible from the Ulleungdo area and Oki was visible from Onshu (Japanese mainland) a more plausible translation is that Oki was the boundary of Japan at the time. It should be noted that Japanese maps of the day DO NOT show either Ulleungdo or Dokdo.
The quote by "Viewing Korea from this area is the same as viewing Oki from Onshu" by Saito Hosen in Kanji looks as follows 見高麗如雲州望-州 and it can be seen on many Japanese maps long after Ulleungdo was deemed Korean territory. Thus it doubtful it was used to determine Ulleungdo as Japanese territory. Here is a summary of Saito Hosen's report on my website. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
In the year 1785 Hayashi Shihei used a color-coded map that also showed the same Kanji text next to Ulleungdo Island. This map was colored to indicate which territories belonged to whom and we can see Oki Island are definitely the limit of Japan. Here is a page with Hayashi Shihei's map and an images showing Saito Hosens quote below. Note the characters 朝鮮 for Chosun are used rather than 高麗 for Koryo. 
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Hayashi-shihei.html
Korean professor ShinYongHa also supports the other translation stating Oki is the boundary in Saito Hosen's report.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
Japanese writer Hideki Kajimura also agrees with the alternate translation in his article about Dokdo.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/Books/observer/2-4.hwp
I would also like to inquire about editing the portion regarding Japan's claimed "effective management" during the 17th Century. I look forward to you response.
:The insistence is different according to the interpretation of "州(state or island)". However, it is clear that he thought that Ullengdo is not Koryo. Saito and map makers recorded Koryo is Ullengdo ahead. I think you should sign.--Opp2 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LAME 

message: Knock off the racist bullshit.  This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
::People like JBoyler wouldn't even have an idea how important this issue is to Koreans. Good friend100 20:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigot Alert!

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Disputed islands claimed by Japan}} 

message: *Number 1: The Korean island, Wool-Leung-Do (울릉도), is only 88km away from Dokdo (Wool-Leung-Do is the nearest island to Dokdo in Korea).
The japanese island, Okii, is 157km away from Dokdo (Okii is the nearest island to Dokdo in Japan).
*Number 2: The Korean Peninsula is only 217km away from Dokdo.
Japan (the main island) is 220km away from Dokdo.
Therefore, the two facts above proves about the clear border line of Dokdo and which country it belongs to.
Also, Dokdo was used as a navy port during the Silla Dynasty. Dokdo was served as other military bases and more throughout the history of Korea, including the Goguryeo and the Choosen Dynasty.
etc. —The preceding comment was added by Younila (talk • contribs) 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically. The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.
It is legally valueless. --Opp2 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Opp2, if you're that passionate about international laws, why don't you try to rephrase all of the introductions of the articles regarding disputed territories? Here's a double bind: Either you're right about the international laws & all articles, even the Japanese territories disputed by Korea, should be rephrased that way, or you're just JPOV & there should be nothing done about the international POV (???). You can always rethink about this issue, buddy. I won't do anything more on this article (because somebody doesn't even like the sourced version of the same introduction), but your arguments won't make it through either. (Wikimachine 16:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should consider the means well that United Nations say the sovereignty is unsettled. And, if it follows your logic of double bind, the  present occupation by South Korea need not be described. Korean present occupation is only one of the insistences on the sovereignty by South Korea , and the sovereignty is unsetteled. The meaning has already been included in "sovereignty is unsetteled". --Opp2 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Japanese protest against Korean Sovereignity" is wrong because the sovereignty is unsettled. "Japan and South Korea are claming Takeshima's sovereignty, and Takeshima's sovereignty is unsettled" is an accurate description. I am very disappointed at your subjective, dogma and KPOV comment without enough investigation. --Opp2 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the site that you gave to prove that the sovereinty is unsettled (???) & it has nothing to do w/ Dokdo. I'm kind of confused. Are you trying to test us to see whether or not we really check your sources? (Wikimachine 06:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think that "Dokdo" that is the South Korea name is used by UN? You shoul look at "Liancourt Rock" in P-3 No139. And, this UN document shows that "Liancourt Rock" is NPOV name. Thank you.--Opp2 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think that the name "Dokdo" is not used in UN, so what? Nevertheless, You see, I gave at least a good paragraph, and Opp2 still doesn't get this. I wonder who is the one to be disappointed? As I said earlier, Japanese users have nothing to say beyond international laws and that is why because you (Opp2) are/is so passionate about it, but is that everything about Dokdo? Is it ethical? 
*Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo?
*Is UN's way the only right way, to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets. 
*Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article?
*And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit?  
*Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols?
--Kingj123 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additio. 

message: Could someone look at the original article being referenced and see whether the movie was referenced?  Otherwise I think that User:Jjok is having a bit of a joke?  Shenme 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not going to reference any movies here. (Wikimachine 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking feelings 

message: Dokdo, Dok-do ou Tok-do (Hangul: 독도, Hanja: 獨島 — "île lointaine" ou "île rocher" en coréen) est un petit groupe d'îlots situé en mer du Japon et rattaché au comté de Ulleung dans la région du Gyeongsang du Nord en Corée du Sud à 87 kilomètres de l'île d'Ulleung-do. Le Japon pour sa part considère que ce groupe d'îles s'appelle Takeshima, fait toujours partie de son territoire et est rattaché au village de Goka, ville de Okinoshima, district d'Oki, préfecture de Shimane. Dokdo n'est pas de japon, seulement de Corée. Les îlots portent aussi parfois le nom de Rochers de Liancourt (nom sous lequel les occidentaux les connaissaient) en hommage au baleinier français Le Liancourt qui, parti du Havre, le « découvrit » le 27 janvier 1849.
Younila 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll summarise: "Dokdo is part of Korea." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rochers de Liancourt