Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 7

message: THE EDIT HISTORY OF THIS ARCHIVE IS IN Talk:Dokdo/Archive 9 --Philip Baird Shearer 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Japan has always renamed each place that they conquered...  But before they conquered, they still used the same name...(Meaning Tokdo was Tokdo in Japan before their Imperial Era)  Also, Tokdo(Takeishima) belongs to Corea.  So  I am really confused why the Japanese does this...  I wonder if the Japanese would likke it if the world calls Tsushima "Daemado"(Corean for Tsushima)... So it will really be bias if Tokdo is to be called Takeishima...    I strongly believe that Japan has no right to rename Tokdo, Takeishima since the Koreans controlled the isles since the BC ages.  What right does Japan have to rename a property of Korea that has belonged to them over many millenias.  Comparing 5000 year of controll to a brief 30 year control is absurd...  Sincerely Daniel McBeth
--Stephane mot 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

message: For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

message: For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media

message: What are you doing? Moving an article requires discussion before moving it. I am reverting this. Good friend100 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we need an administrator to move the page back.  -- Visviva 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I tried to revert the move, but it simply said that there already was an article named "Dokdo". Good friend100 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nihonjoe, could you post a move tag onto this article? thanks. Good friend100 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I'm not involved in this article to that extent, so if you want to discuss moving the article, you'll have to do it yourself. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, posting a move tag is rather easy...  You just type  where 'subst' is the name you'd like to move the page to.  --ZonathYak 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takeshima, Shimane 

message: Takeshima redirects to Dokdo, which in turn redirects to Dokdo/Takeshima.  If you go to Takeshima, you find a notice about this double redirection, and you have to click on a link to see the actual article.  This redirection needs to be solved. (Stefan2 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it doesn't... Maybe it's already been fixed then. --DandanxD 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: Do we need the section below?
In 2005 a subway station in a Seoul suburb was the center of attention after posting art about the island by young school children depicting Japan in flames, the Japanese flag as toilet paper, etc. See , See , See , See .
I mean, this only serves to make Koreans look irrational and anti-Japanese. Also, the pictures was just a sign of overall anti-Japanese feelings, and should not be in here. Any comments?
-- (General Tiger 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all I'm saying is that this part has nothing to do with Dokdo. Also, don't say such things; I'm pro-Japanese, for example. I've deleted that part, by the way. -- (General Tiger 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't like the part, either. At that time, the referred sites looked pretty well known among some users of 2ch.net and some editors here insisted to mention about that. In the beginning it was very in detail and somewhat has gone too far, so I reduced the paragraph and just indicated the fact and the links. I agree with you deleting it, as long as those original editors are OK without that paragraph. Otherwise we could discuss whether it is relevant to keep that paragraph in this article or not. Ginnre 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, wasn't it a news story about artwork concerning the islands?  It was not simply about anti-Japanese feelings.  Komdori 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  But how is it relevent? Plus, I agree, there will always be anti-Japanese senitments in Asia and there's nothing we can do about that except hoping that it will subdue as time goes (and, of course, when Japan shows genunine remorse). --DandanxD 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the current situation section 

message: It seems that the edit wars are starting again.
-- General Tiger   00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request page protection 

message: we need to go back to the version right before the current one. There's a lot of Japanese POV-- General Tiger  14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, not for POV reasons, but because much of the last edit (before protection) smacks of original research, and is unsupported by references.  --ZonathYak 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the current version 

message: I am disheartened to see this crap that pro Takeshima editors slop onto this article. And I mean it. Good friend100 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from trolling.  Pointing fingers at one side or the other doesn't solve anything. --ZonathYak 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To what end?  The vandalism has more or less ended since the page has been semi-protected.  --ZonathYak 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with Good friend100's comment on how massloads of ignorant people have been changing the Dokdo page to make it compatible with their own 'theory', I also agree with Zonath that 'semi'-lock has proved itself to work and block out the people we do not want. Let's keep the restriction as it is and see for another few weeks. dandan xD 18:09 20 November 2006 AEST
Ok. Good friend100 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how shameful 

message: A proper citation has not been given, although the request is about three weeks old now. Therefore, it was most proper to delete the section, as per Opp2's request. (Wikimachine 05:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimachine, good call. Davidpdx 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that this comment was a positive one. ;| (Wikimachine 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was meant that way. Davidpdx 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. Origonal research is can not be a primary source, neither can a blog. Davidpdx 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the info about terra nullius should be kept b/c there's citation! (Wikimachine 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have presented the thesis of the Korean scholar who admits Japanese insist. You do not want only to admit. --Opp2 07:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion about the terra nullius 

message: This talk page is becoming a place for pointless discussions and unintelligable, uninterpretable stuff is posted all over here. I am TIRED of this. I am going to go AWAY for a while. Good friend100 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is crazy 

message: I can't believe you, this is extremely enervating. I don't think you understand at all how Wikipedia operates. You word it as if this discussion is some case on the Supreme Court or if its some persuasion essay with supporting details but it is NOT. Just because theres no one discussing about what you have to say doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want on the article just because you think it is right. Good friend100 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You admitted my insistence was impartial, logical and specific like the Supreme Court. Thank you. --Opp2 11:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me again. I said Wikipedia does not operate like a Supreme court case and you are treating like it is. That is not a compliment. Good friend100 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello?