Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 14

message: Return the protection to semi-protection so editors can make needed changes. My last three edits, and the one interwiki fix before me today can in no way be considered part of an edit war. Full protection is inappropriate here, and such protection puts off genuine editors such as myself. If necessary block the editors that are edit warring instead.
This change is needed:
:The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), with their highest point at 169 meters (554 ft) in the western islet.
should be changed to:
:The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), and sources vary as to their highest point: truthofdokdo.or.kr claims the western islet (Seodo) is 151 meters and korea.net claims 169 meters (554 ft).
-Wikianon 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that that would sound clumsy. If sources vary as to the altitude of their highest point I reckon it would be best to quote the generally accepted figure (if such figure exists) or at least try to say something like "estimates vary between XXX and YYY" and cite the references. Phonemonkey 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the protection

message: I pointed out the historical errors of the 1667 Report on Oki written by Saito Hosen above. From there I provided at least three separate citations written in English from publications by credible sources. I'm still curious why this error hasn't been dealt with.
Wikipedia reads.
In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hessen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following:
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.
But in reality the document reads.
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 this "州"  marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report does it say Ulleungdo (Matsushima) marks the northwest boundary of Japan. In fact, Ulleungdo was called Takeshima at this time. "Thus, this "州" is the northwest boundary of Japan.
The character "州" in Kanji (chinese based-characters) means area or province. If you read the text of Saito Hosen't report he used the character "州" to denote province and used the character "島" to mean island.
Again, In the last line of his report Saito Hosen states. "Viewing Korea from Takeshima~Matsushima is the same as viewing Oki Province from Shimae Province. This this "州" province or area markes the northern boundary of Japan.
Here are the English sources that concur with what I've pointed out.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
Scroll down to chapter 10 (X) on this article by Japanese Professor Hideki Kajimura and you can see some Japanese also support the Korean interpretation of the 1667 Report on Oki by Saito Hosen.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura.hwp
Here is another reference from Han Key Lee's article published by Seoul University Press in 1969. The information on Saito Hosen's Oki 1667 Report on Oki is on page ten. It too states the boundary of Japan was Oki Province (Island) NOT Matsushima.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/leehankey-legal.hwp
Although I've linked these documents from my website they were originally downloaded in there unedited form from this website. I did this because you cannot hotlink directly to them (for some reason it doesn't work) The original page where I obtained publications of the Korea Observer can be found at this link.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm
The errors I'm pointing out have nothing to do with "interpretation" or POV. The errors Wikipedia has made in this example are an incorrect translation of a historical document as a result of intensive JPOV lobbying. This is a separate issue from Dokdo as a political issue. This should be rectified.
Here is my page on the Saito Hosen report. You can view the original document itself and compare the actual text and translation.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
Wikipedia should stop bickering over silly issues such as alphabetical order and definitions of words like "occupation" and address the incorrect translations and lack of primary maps and documents here.Clownface 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you describe both theories(province and island), I will agree to correct. And, I think that you will agree to the correction of many KPOV descriptions (looks like terra nullius and Japanese contradiction theory). --Opp2 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry to interrupt, but I was just wondering if 竹島 is read as 죽도 (Jukdo) in Korean, and ta-ke-shi-ma in Japanese. If so, why is the small island next to 울릉도 (uellungdo) also read as Jukdo (in Korean)?Amphitere 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please address the incorrect translations on this page

message: <Insistence of Japanese Government>
:The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.
<Insistences of Japanese scholars of International Law>
*Prof. Matsusumi(Hachiman Univ ronsyu p107-108, 1962)
:If it was not terra nullius but a territory in Japan from long ago, the requirement for the territory acquisition (title by occupation: annotation by Matsusumi) by modern International Law did not have to be filled. Incorporation into Shimane Prefecture might be evidence that Japanese Government admitted Takeshima as terra nullius.(無主の土地でなく日本古来の領土の一部であるという立場に立つ限り、日本政府は第二の点であるところの「近代国際法により必要とされる領土取得の（先占）要件を国家行為を以て充足する」必要はなかった筈である。にも拘わらず1905年（明治38年）2月22日....竹島の領土編入の意志を殊更に島根県告示を以て公示したのは日本政府自身当時竹島を「無主の土地」と認めていた証拠であろう。)
*Prof. Minagawa(Kokusai hougaku no syomondai p363, 1963)
:Acient title was acquired by Japan's discovering in the 17th century, and using it exclusively realistically. This title was replaced for firm title by the incorporation in 1905.(日本はすぐに[sic.]十七世紀はじめ竹島を発見し、それを現実的専用の対象とすることによって原始的権原を有していたのであり、それは 1905年同島の正式な領土編入により確定的権原に代替された.....)
*Prof. Daijyudo(Kokusaiho gaiko zashi p143, March 1963 and Ryodokisokuno kokusaiho p143, 1998 )
:The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards are enough to change title thought that Japan effectively acquired in accordance with International Law in the 17th century for the modern title.(日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。)
*Prof. Serita (Nihon no Ryodo p153, 2002)
:Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the occupation title of terra nullius. Japan insist that if it treats as a Japanese territory at that time and another country doesn't object to it, it is enough to acquisition because International Law doesn't apply before opening the country to the world.(日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。)
<Outline of thesis by Prof. Park who is a Korean scholar  (Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi 2006)>
:The insistence on two territorial titles (historical title, title by occupation) like Japan seems like contradiction. In this thesis, the insistence of Japan is examined. That is, Japan should select one title or two titles can be united. And I examine which title is appropriate if Japan selects one title.
1.Contradiction theory of historical title and occupation title
:The author classified the insistence of a Japanese scholar and Japanese Government as follows.
:* Title by occupation theory (Prof. Matsusumi's thesis in 1962, Prof. Minagawa's thesis in 1963)
:* Historical title theory (Japanese Government, Prof. Daijyudo's thesis in 1966)
:However, the insistence of Japanese Government is assumed to be a coexisting theory. Prof. Park is not judging whether Daijyudo’s thesis is a contradiction theory or a coexisting theory to be clear.
2.Coexisting theory of historical title and title by occupation
:The insistence of Japanese Government is thought to be a coexisting theory. Daijyudo’s thesis is thought to be a coexisting theory. International Law did not request the reconfirmation of the will to own territory against the country which had become the member of the international society on the way. However, International Law is not prohibiting it. It is logically possible to strengthen her title by additional action same as title by occupation. A logically possible thing and actual execution are other questions. Therefore, Japanese title by occupation cases should be verified.
3.Analysis of Japanese title by occupation cases
:The Japanese process of title by occupation is as follows. Geographic knowledge is acquired first. Secondarily, the ownership of the island is confirmed. Finally, if the occupation by another country is not confirmed, it is incorporated. However, the civilian's activity might be earlier than the acquisition of geographic knowledge by government. It is only two cases that Japan notified in seven cases. The relation to Senkaku Islands in the Sino-Japanese War is paid to attention in Korea.
4.Comparison with Takeshima's incorporation
:There is no big difference between Takeshima's incorporation and other Japanse title by occupation cases. In Takeshima's incorporation, the governmental intention of reinforced Japanese historical title is not felt. Japanese coexisting theory is likely not to approve as a substance act though the theory is logically possible.
5.Summary
:Japan should insist on title by occupation about Takeshima because there is no difference with other title by occupation cases. However, Japanese government will not do it. Korea should present the historical evidences when Japan insists on historical title. Korea should prove that Takeshima is not terra nullius before 1905 when Japan insists on title by occupation. After all, it is likely to have to be based on modern International Law like title by occupation or the effective control title, etc. It is difficult to find the standard of the historical title in East Asia at that time.
When the opinion of Prof. Pak and Prof. Serita's opinion are added to Prof. Pak's classification, it is as follows.
* It is contradiction, and Japan should select title by occupation.
::Prof. Matusumi, (Prof. Minagawa), (Prof. Daijyudo)
* Japan should select title by occupation though it is not contradiction.
::Prof. Park
* There is no problem in a present Japanese insistence.
::Japanese government, (Prof. Daijyudo), Prof. Serizawa
():Interpretation by Prof. Park.
Even the person who doesn't know International Law will understand by there are various interpretations. There are neither an established theory nor a judicial precedent about the application of International Law to the country before International Law is received. There is not a decided form to succeed to from history title to title of International Law either. Therefore, a lot of theories exist. It is only Prof. Matsusumi to conclude title by occupation of terra nullius.
<The description of a present article>
"Opening"
*Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.
"The Joseon and Edo Period"
*This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).
"Other Maps and records"
*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.
These descriptions are KPOV in complete. I do not demand to erase these KPOV descriptions(contradiction). However, I demand the following corrections for NPOV.
:*It should be described clearly that it is an interpretation by South Korea.
:*The rebuttal of Japan against this contradiction theory should be described. 
:*The following contradictions of the South Korea's insistence are pointed out as "contradiction" cleary.
::*South Korea is interpreting Don 'guk yeoji seungnam as the record that sees Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo now. However, a Chosun government is interpreting it as a record that saw Ulleungdo from the peninsula in 1694.
::*The South Korea government is insisting that Ahn's activity is effective now. However, Chosun government answered to Japan that he is unrelated to a Chosun government in 1696. Moreover, Chosun government answered that Ahn's petition in the Tottori clan is his lie. 
--Opp2 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for those evidences. It may have been my fault, but I did not see these until now. (Wikimachine 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Do not you know Oki to be a direct control territory? Do you understand a Japanese political system at that time? To begin with, it is not confirmed that the Shogunate and the Tottori feudal lord accepted Ahn's request. Why do you change the topic? Present subject is Chosun's official final answer to Japan about Ahn. She denied Ahn's activity.--Opp2 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm the same person. Actually, most of what that says is included somewhere in the article - except that the first several quotes explain how the incorporation could have been under terra nullius. That could be added, but I'm not sure if the translation of yours is accurate. Also, just one sentence doesn't do us any good. And we need the book's or journal's title & then the chapter title as well. (Wikimachine 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Include? first several quotes? Which concrete quotation and article?　The quotation is all the same as last time. The title of the book has already been written. Is the one sentence bad?　Is such a rule in wikipedelia?　And, most of the sentence is quoted by Prof. park and his thesis has already been presented. 
--Opp2 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go to WP:JP to ask someone there to back you up on the translations. (Wikimachine 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do not you admit your lie or mistake?--Opp2 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Peaceful effective control" is an insistence of Japan. It is described clearly as the Japanese claim. Is the following sentences added as a Korean claim?　”In South Korea, there is no evidence of the effective control. There is not specific evidence without doubt that it shows that 石島 is Liancourt Rocks either." Why do not you understand the subject always? Do not tell an unrelated story to this part here. --Opp2 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Original Reserch. Why do not you understand the subject always?----Opp2 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hori is not a scholar of International Law. Why do not you understand the subject always? --Opp2 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanse contradiction and terra nullius theory 

message: User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks
As requested, I'm providing sources. I'm going to write the alternate version of this article, & will present this to either the arbitration committee, mediation committee, or the RFC. (Wikimachine 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're done, feel free to compare with the state of the real article, and suggest individual changes for us to debate. —LactoseTIT 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This Alternate version is based on old information and the guess. --Opp2 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate version

message: A one-sided act is not taken as a lawful act by International Law. 
:*In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue.
Even the scholar who is supporting the Korean claim admits that present occupation by Korea is blocked by Japanese protests. p21-22
:*Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription.
:*Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.
Therefore, South Korea is not suitable as an administration. If only South Korea is admited as an administration, it is KPOV.--Opp2 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is South Korea suitable as an administration?

message: A number of times of requested a change to inaccuracies on this page. What sources does Wikipedia accept as credible? I hear the term "original research" a lot here what does this mean and what does it matter?
Wikipedia, Please clarify what information you need to amend your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki and I will provide them for you.
Clownface 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy that you asked. For the definition of original research please refer to Wikipedia:No original research, and as for what sources are acceptable please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Phonemonkey 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What information sources are considered reputable?

message: I don't see anything wrong with my edit.
Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan. In Japan, they are known as Takeshima (, , Bamboo islands) and in South Korea they are known as Dokdo (, ). South Korea currently occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan.Charles Scanlon South Koreans vent fury at Japan BBC, 18 March 2005, globalsecurity The name "Liancourt Rocks" comes from the French whaling ship Liancourt which charted the islets in 1849.
South Korea claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905. Today, South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima, in Oki District, Shimane Prefecture. Good friend100 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with most of the above. It's only the second half of this sentence which is unnecessary - "Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan." The fact that Japan claims the islets are mentioned twice in the same sentence, and the fact that S Korea currently administers the islets is already in the intro. Phonemonkey 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with the current version nor do I see the need for your edit. Again, Phonemonkey, you ask why not? I ask why yes. (Wikimachine 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strange comment from Wikimachine. I never asked "why not", and I have already answered "why yes". Phonemonkey 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree at all. Becouse "administrate" has already been discussed. Sources of time and yahoo that you presented above cannot be seen. I think it is useless even if the same thing is written twice looks like your proposal. --Opp2 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "However" is not a conjunction. --Reuben 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  beginning paragraph 

message: I WILL NOT TOLERATE that "consensus" that you Opp2 made up - if you want the change, do it legitimately - DONT USE ANON ACCOUNTS to slip in changes, & then say "CONSENSUS". OR ELSE I WILL USE ARBITRATION & REPORT TO WP:SOCK FOR REVERT WAR & MANIPULATION OF CONSENSUS. (Wikimachine 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Komdori, if you haven't noticed, I was under the impression that there was no new edits on the intro & I never agreed to anything there- there was consensus - but it all ends here. I'll begin arbitration now. (Wikimachine 03:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A half dozen or so editors worked on making it better over a period of days or weeks.  You were well aware of the discussion, but just threatened to veto.  We don't need your permission.  See WP:OWN.  Go ahead and file whatever you like, they will probably say the same thing.  Not to be rough, but if you change your mind and decide to help improve the article instead of wikilawyering, we'll be here to discuss it with you. --Cheers, Komdori 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You have just contradicted yourself. People took part in a discussion and agreed on an edit. If that's not consensus then what is it? Phonemonkey 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No way, RV

message: Wikipedia reads as follows:
In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hessen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following:
"...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 is an incorrect translation and incorrect interpretation made in the JPOV that is not supported by other maps and other historical data of this era. The last line of Saito Hosen's report reads:
然則 日本之乾地以此州爲限矣
Thus, this "州" prefecture (Oki) marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.
It does not say Ulleungdo (竹島) or Matsushima (松島) mark the northwest boundary at all.
:While 州 is conventionally translated "province" in this context, not as prefecture, the literal translation of that quote may be "Thus  the dried land [opp. watery sea] of Japan make this province its boundary [mark].". However we admit 州 can be used to refer to an island. This is highly context depending (州 can be state [e.g. State of California], or even continent [e.g. European Continent]),  so I recommend to list both interpretations unless the whole text is provided and we can see it more closely. --Aphaia 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for change to Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki.

message: Goodfriend100, you have sourced this edit of yours
on a geocities page (http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html). While I agree it is a well researched site, assuming that it is a personal website of a private individual I don't think it falls under the definition of a reliable source. If the interpretation of the Cairo conference which you mention has been used by  (for exampe) the Korean government as an argument (as opposed to a personal interpretation by whoever's page it is) then I'm sure there would be other, published sources which show this, so I urge you to find that. At the moment someone will, quite justifiably, remove the paragraph you added. Phonemonkey 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good friend100, send a message to my e-mail address: rei0zero@gmail.com. I'll send you a gozillion sources which Phonemonkey can't complain against. (Wikimachine 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikimachine, if you have a reliable source then you are totally welcome to put it on the article yourself. And I don't understand why you seem so offended by the fact that I pointed out that the source is a personal website - would you have preferred me to notice that a source was a personal website, but kept it quiet? Phonemonkey 23:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm not, sorry I wasn't offended by you. And no, I don't want to contribute to the actual article b/c it will be reverted. That was really no reason, I'm not sure why I wasn't more courteous. (Wikimachine 02:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Hey Opp2, a better alternative to "stupid" would be "obtuse". (Wikimachine 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opp, your more than welcome to add whatever you want, as long as its sourced. And your just repeating what phonemonkey said. Don't name somebody as "foolish". Its clear that you are only here for the interest of strengthining the article in Japan's favor. Good friend100 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Korean rebutter against Shimane incorporation is added to summary, it is necessary to add that Korea does not have the evidence of effective control and  specific evidence(only presumption). The rebuttal to the insistence calls a further rebuttal and eddit war. --Opp2 01:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And, I always describing the both theories in parallel. Present article doesnot become so. For instance, terra nullius and Ogasawara hypothesis. In these hypotheses, the "obtuse"　scholar's thesis is starting points.--Opp2 01:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of a geocities source

message: http://www.korea.net/about/about_dokdo_view.asp?board_no=12401&menu_code=B&page=2
Now it's sourced. Don't complain anymroe. (Wikimachine 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cairo Conference

message: Please stop using anon accounts to participate in revert wars. I checked the article history & all those anon accounts are brand new, basically. I really wonder how you guys manage to get new IP addresses everytime there's a dispute - when I say "you guys" I'm very much guessing Opp2. This is so much like a forum-organized stuff (i.e. 2ch.net 1 yr ago) It's as if they're all Japanese ppl who can't speak English & Opp2 is the only who who can so whenever he needs help his club helps in to make up for their language disability. (Wikimachine 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, there must be some misunderstanding on your perspective of what I'm thinking. If you think I hate Japan, no I don't. I've got some Jpop & anime stored in my computer so maybe you can believe me I don't get angry just b/c of those Japanese viewpoints on this article - but if they're emphasized in the most ridiculuos ways. Only thing that would piss me off is this constant revert war & constant crap such as how LactoseTI talks about consensus when there clearly isn't consensus, etc. That - making up craps even though you're wrong & I have to waste time replying or reverting... and is this playing or serious, making edits that you know the other party's going to reject. Or... ignoring questions that you know you can't answer. If you've seen S. Korean demonstrating against Japanese gov & burning Japanese flags & getting violent on youtube & you conclude that's how all or most S. Koreans are, you're wrong again. I do what I do here simply b/c that is the right thing to do. Also, don't think that you're making some symbolic victory by doing what you want here or getting ppl blocked/banned. All that might result from what you do here is to lose a potential ally. (Wikimachine 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, those PC cafes. Why couldn't I think of that. (Wikimachine 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anon account

message: Kingj123, your rationale behind your edits should be that Liancourt Rocks, despite being disputed, is more Korean & than it is known to be Japanese - not alphabetical order. It's not that D comes before T but that J (Japan) comes before S (South Korea). Simply, even if Japan comes first in alphabetical order, Japan's simply not on equal level of ownership of South Korea & therefore it is inappropriate to have Japan on top of S. Korea - again these were trivial stuffs but some POV pusher wanted to make Liancourt Rocks "more" Japanese so put that country, country 1 field. (Wikimachine 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it is "more Japanese than Korean" or "more Korean than Japanese" is at the heart of the major debate worldwide.  We cannot come down on one side or the other here because we must maintain at least a semblance of neutrality. —LactoseTIT 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where you go biased & flawed. According to you, anybody can dispute anything & suddenly the question of ownership becomes real. NPOV doesn't justify prescription over description. (Wikimachine 15:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that it has been a worldwide issue for decades, with news stories appearing frequently even today about the dispute, it is inappropriate to prescribe the "winner" based on your interpretation of the merits instead of describing the dispute. --Cheers, Komdori 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never asked for a winner nor do I think of a dispute as being centered on mere act of winning. No matter what you say, what I say stands. Dokdo is a Korean island. (Wikimachine 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read this policy and already archived discussion. The alphabetical order rule is supported by this policy for NPOV. If you have any claim for a naming convention on Wikipedia, you should go to propose your claim on those discussion page. As LactoseTI said, it is not "more Japan than Korea".--Watermint 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes our policies can be flawed or not as comprehensive/responsive to different situations. But most of all, ppl can manipulate those policies for their own ends. (Wikimachine 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: However, the said guideline (WP:NCGN) only applies to lists of foreign language names. That is, for this article, it is the multilingual language infobox in the geography section. And WCGN's recommendation is probably not based on neutrality but for practicality. When there's many languages and you want to find a name in one language, it would be easier to find if the list is in alphabetic order of their respective languages than in the order of importance (whatever the criteria). I don't think simply bring WP:NCGN up would settle this content dispute. --Kusunose 13:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical order 

message: Just for the record. None of this is quite near 3RR yet, but all of it is unproductive revert-warring. New user NIYet has the most reverts, but he was actually doing the least unconstructive job nevertheless, whereas others were blindly reverting him in tag-team. No blocks right now (or I'd have to block all you guys), but Arbcom will be interested in these statistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, for the record, NIYet made another revert and was blocked for a clear-cut 3RR violation.  LactoseTI added several references, some of them addressing the issue evidently bothering NIYet since he blindly reverted four times after inserting it without discussion, all within a 24 hr period. --Cheers, Komdori 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A friend in need is a friend indeed. Good friend100 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two days' worth of revert-warring 

message: We should add a section about how Korean and Japanese government are working on to solve the on going dispute. We were all busy debating which country these islets belong to. We should research more about how these two governments are at least "trying" to solve the problem peacefully and morally. Kingj123 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: I realized that my version replaced the infobox w/ Japan's administration in it - however I also remembered that the Japanese administration was not originally there & was added by without consensus or discussion (until it was slipped & settled for a while so Komdori & LactoseTI could say "consensus! no more changes now!") (Wikimachine 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been through this several times, every time someone gets it in their head to remove it, it seems it needs explaining again.  The infobox template itself makes it more clear.  This is an area to describe how the various regions classify it for purposes of administration.  Like it or not, both countries have a classification.  If you have an issue with the word "administration," you can take it up with the infobox people, or perhaps we can make a split with whatever word we agree on. --Cheers, Komdori 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or I can take it right here, Komdori, I'm just saying that it was added without consensus to begin with. (Wikimachine 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro's infobox