Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 12

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
# Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was no move, 28 May 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

message: See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11
::And yes, there is plenty of space here & I notice that there have been efforts to shut everything out from the discussion & allocate them into the archive or outside pages - as an effort to shut out dissenting opinions. ("dissent" somebody brought that up) (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm trying to delete the link to the meat puppetry, which means that the admin can return to his previous conclusion. (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is some people were mislabled sockpuppets. Only after that fact when that was disproven, was it too late to change it back, which is what several people who have accused me of sockpuppetry wanted. My comment should be changed back (or if it was counted the sockpuppet allegations should be removed), even if it doesn't change the outcome. Davidpdx 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest

message: What is the final conclusion? What is the reason? Who did this? I can't see anything. Kingj123 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 for details. --Cheers, Komdori 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Either what you said counted or it didn't depending on whether you were labled a sockpuppet by those who like to go around and accusing people of that. Davidpdx 04:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: Present description is follws.
In 1145, Samguk Sagi (Chronicles of Three Kingdoms) recorded that the state of Usan (Usan-guk), an island kingdom located on Ulleung-do and asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets, was conquered and "re-integrated" into the Korean kingdom of Silla in 512.
Original text of Samguk Sagi is follows
十三年夏六月,于山國帰服,歳以士宜為貢于山國,在溟州正東海島,或名欝陵島,地方一百里,恃嶮不服,伊異斯夫,為何瑟羅州軍主,謂于山人愚悍難以威来,可以計服,乃多造木偶師子,分載戦船,抵其国海岸誑告白,汝若不服,則放此猛獣,踏殺之,國人恐懼則降
Which chinese character corresponds to "asserted to have encompassed several surrounding islets"? This is a clear lie mistake. I think description of this article is further KPOV for several months. --Opp2 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, you are asserting this is a mistranslation and the phrase in bold should be deleted?  It seems pretty uncontroversial to me.  If someone wants to add it back, they just need to show the part of text that reflects this. --Cheers, Komdori 09:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted.--Opp2 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samguk Sagi 

message: Present description is follows
However, Korean scholars such as Professor Shin Yong-ha of Hanyang University argue against this by saying that Jukdo, as with Dokdo, is not only also rather small in size, but is even less noteworthy than Dokdo on a map due to its proximity to Ulleungdo, thus making it meaningless to draw it unto a map in the immediate presence of a much larger island while Dokdo, due to its distance, commands a greater need to be displayed on a cartograph to leave no ambiguity concerning the administrative control of the Korean government. Korean scholars also argue that there is little way to infer information from the depiction of minor islands on older drawings due to the fact that their shape is generally more or less the same (that is, all are miniature circles).
These are presumptions based on KPOV without evidence. Is such a long sentence necessary so that it may make an excuse for Korea why? I can offer the verification map like this if there is a detailed image of these maps. I think that the reader only has to judge it from the verified map.--Opp2 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KPOV is still fine if it is appropriately referenced. However, first of all, Daehanjiji Map should be there. I also like your maps. Jjok 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Chosun maps(Donguk jido, Haejwa Jeondo and Dongguk Jeondo) 

message: lions3639 wrote another article about the page move.위키피디아 독도명칭 결국 변경 Chosun Ilbo, 2007.05.30 17:08  
:It would be nice if he had mentioned how his own idiotic attempt at canvassing an entire country had exactly the opposite of the intended effect.  Oh, but he's a journalist, he's just observing the news. -- Visviva 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtful; the CU's summary suggests that the users in question may even be in different parts of the country.  -- Visviva 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm glad some schmuck pseudo-reporter was able to make a buck off our work and get his jollies by disrupting everything, causing ill will that potentially could bleed over into other articles.  The CU did show they were unlikely puppets (now), which makes no one happier than I am.  There were some pretty harsh words exchanged and I just hope we can put the unpleasantness behind us and continue to be productive.  In my opinion if anyone is to blame it's the jackass who decided to disrupt this page, and it's likely he isn't even an editor here.  Whether he is or not, we don't know at this time, and there's little sense pointing fingers right now.  Anyway, moving on...  --Cheers, Komdori 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article of Chosun Ilbo about the move

message: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/05/30/2007053000903.html I read this news.
Liancourt Rocks? It is not POV.
locational name use their country's pronounciation. it is pov.
Dokdo is Korean territory. japanese opinion is not important. korean polices and civilian live their.
Korean make Korean territory's english name.
Liancourt Rocks???
Japanse call US as "rice country".
Korean call US as "beutiful country".
United State of America -> Rice country?
United State of America -> Beutiful country?
It is POV? It is nonsense. it is joke...hahaha
-- WonYong (talk • contribs • &site= count • [ logs] • email) 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I read about this, the more I also come to this conclusion.  Naming shouldn't be a problem on the English Wikipedia because we have the Liancourt Rocks name.  Looking, it seems that it is used by the CIA factbook and all other Western sources that are clearly credible.  The rest of the world can call them whatever they want, the US, England, and other English speaking nations can pretty well agree it to be Liancourt Rocks (if for no other reason than to not piss someone off). theanphibian 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Korean make Korean territory's english name." This is known as Argument by Ignorance (of Wikipedia Policy). 221.133.86.163 10:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liancourt Rocks? It is NPOV 

message: See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data. This will be presented to the closing admin User:Husond. (Wikimachine 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded there.  I suggest the discussion be kept to that page to avoid clutter here and/or a split discussion between these two pages. --Cheers, Komdori 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed Data Against Meat Puppetry Accusation 

message: While I know it isn't general acceptable to change archieved pages, I am asking that the changes I made noting that I was cleared of the allegation of sockpuppetry be left alone. The allegations were made before the poll closed and took some time to clear myself and one other person. Although it does nothing for the outcome, it would be nice to think my voice counted for something. Especially since I had to argue to get myself cleared of wrongdoing. Davidpdx 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archieve 11 Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo Poll 

message: These are geographic informations concerning Usando of a Chosun government. Official Record of Chosun concerning the geography of Usando is very few and valuable. However, these important information is not being written in a present article. I am very wondered. 
Conference record(備辺司謄録) January 19, 1735
戊寅年間朝家送張漢相, 看審圖形以來, 而聞鬱陵島, 廣闊土沃, 曾有人居基址, 或有往來之痕, 其西又有于山島, 而亦且廣闊云矣
The Chosun government made 張漢相 investigate Ullengdo, and he saw the figure of Ullengdo. After that, Ullendgo has been heard a vast and fertile island. There are signs in the dwelling and traffic, too. In the west(of Ullengdo), there is Usando. It is said that this island is vast and fertile, too.
Investigation report of Ullengdo by 金履喬(May 12, 1807)
北有于山島周回爲二三里
Usando is in the north (of Ullengdo). The circumference is 0.8km-1.2km.
Please teach if there is a reason not being described for such a valuable record. I will add to the article if there are no special question. By the way, Liancourt Rocks is neither the north nor the west of Ullengdo. Liancourt Rocks is small and not fertile.--Opp2 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange ... Most Korean oldmaps indicate that the 'Uleung' is north or northwest of the 'Usan' island. Jtm71 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are Chosun maps of the same age. Can you think that Usando of these Chosun maps is Liancourt Rocks? I cannot. A present article conceals a lot of inconvenient information for Korea like this. --Opp2 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you verify that they went back to the Uleung to the south ? In 1800, the earth was in little ice age and (maybe) the cold current of the eastsea was dominent, so, they had to navigate northward not to drift southward. (It is my postulation) Jtm71 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Then what do you think is the proper island which fits these maps ? These maps represents that the Usan island belongs to Uleung. Surely the 'Usan' is east of 'Uleung' and it is just the size and the shape of the base(over -10m) of the island. Jtm71 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I think anyone should respect to the guidance of the wikipedia. Jtm71 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valuable Official Record about Usando 

message: This is kind of random, so I am just adding it here. So, I am very happy that the article is chosen to be called as Liancourt Rocks. But, is it both administered by Korea and Japan? It seems like so on the info box at the right. If not, then please change it. Amphitere 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liancourt Rocks for Japan is similar to Taiwan Province for PRC. Both ROC and PRC claim the administration and ROC is effectively controlling (or occupying) there.  Jjok 21:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Administration and effective control

message: Ok, I have initiated a new discussion for renaming Senkaku Islands.  If anybody is interested, please comment at the talk page.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Welcome back and see you at United States Expedition to Korea in 1871, Amban. Jjok 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion for renaming [[Senkaku Islands]] and [[Sinmiyangyo]]

message: The source assumed that SCAPIN677 is still effective is requested. I found the article on Korea Times about this theme. This article is very interesting.
Korea Times
However, after the Napoleonic Wars, international law underwent a transformation, and “annexation” was no longer permitted.
There are scholars who are classifying annexation into the cession. Does the author say that the cession is unlawful? I do not know the scholar of International Law who assumes that the cession and annexation are unlawful.
Korea Times
*In the modern era, conquest must be followed by military occupation. The Hague Regulations (1907) specify that “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.”
*In other words, the United States has “acquired” these areas under the principle of conquest
To begin with, the conquest indicates the military subjugation and occupation. Does the author think that there is a peaceful conquest? The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) is a law of war. It provides for the administrate of occupied territories of the war. Most(all) scholars of International Law say that the conquest became illegal after WW1.
::ex.Sharon Korman
:::Sharon Korman shows how the First World War - which led to the rise of self-determination and to calls for the prohibition of way - prompted the reconstruction of international law and the consequent abolition of the title by conquest.
If the conquest is lawful, International Military Tribunal for the Far East clearly becomes unlawful. 
Korea Times say
As un-demarcated territory under the terms of the treaty, at the present time Dokdo is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Military Government (USMG). 
What does USMG mean? U.S. army, occupation forces in Iraq or DoD? Were there two governments in the United States?　Was the United States a divided country such as China and Taiwan? Which country has approved the USMG? Common sense was disregarded, and a very interesting insistence. However, grounds are uncertain. 
Should I adopt this article as a citation? A lot of annotations and rebuttals will be needed for normal International Law if it adopts--Opp2 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation about remaining of SCAPIN677's effect 

message: In the English Wikipedia, the Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku Islands in Japanese and Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese), which are effectively controlled by the Japanese but also claimed by the Chinese, are titled the "Senkaku Islands."
In the same encyclopedia, the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese), which are effectively controlled by the Koreans but also claimed by the Japanese, are titled the "Liancourt Rocks."
This makes me wonder if consistency is valued in English Wikipedia. I think this article should be titled "Dokdo" for the sake of fairness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.111.214.149 (talk • contribs) 
: Please see the Talk:Senkaku_Islands page where this very issue is being discussed and the similarities and differences are being explored. —LactoseTIT 12:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, is Les Rochers de Liancourt administered by Korea or Japan? Isn't it administered by Korea, but is claimed by Japan? (And, if Dokdo/Takeshima is decided to be named as Liancourt Rocks in the English Wikipedia, don't you think you should also change it in Wikipedias of other languages?). Amphitere 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See above discussion(s) for the first points.  As for other Wikipedia projects, it really depends on the language in question.  For other Wikipedia projects, they should follow the naming policy in their own language.  That is, in Korean Wikipedia, it should stay "Dokdo" and in Japanese Wikipedia, it should stay "Takeshima." --Cheers, Komdori 01:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, in Japanese Wikipedia, it's "Takeshima (Shimane Prefecture)". "Takeshima" is a disambiguation page. --Kusunose 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the French, Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc. User pages? Amphitere 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dokdo and the Senkaku Islands 

message: :An 18th century map of Korea drawn by the Chosun court. 2 islands in the approxamite locations of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks can be seen to the east of Korea.
This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map. According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (竹島／独島関係 史・資料目録, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane), it is one of 『朝鮮與地全図』 (Chōsen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by 関口備正? and published in 1875 (明治8年) by 山城屋佐兵衛, 大蔵孫兵衛, and 朝倉屋久兵衛 (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14′N, 131°52′E (Liancourt Rocks, リアンコヲルトロックス) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I overlapped this map with an actual position. --Opp2 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:18thcenturydokdo.jpg]]