Talk:Rusk documents

message: July, 1951. beging of Korean war cease-fire talks(face hard going)
July 19, 1951. request from South Korea(domain and to confiram continuing MacAther Line)     
August 2, 1951.  request from South Korea(above and claim compensation )                        
August 10, 1951. reply from the US government(Rusk documents)                 
(untried)September, 1951. japan decided to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty. 
(untried)November, 1951. japan denied to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. The US embassy to Busan did lip service. 
January 18,1952. the Syngman Rhee line was declared(begining of Liancort problem)
(internal)October 3,1952.the US Embassy dispatched to U.S.state dep.
April 28, 1952. The treaty of peace with Japan was concluded(independence of Korea)
July 27, 1953. agree on an armistice (Korea didn't attend signing ceremony)         
Match 16,2005.U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island is neutrality.
The Korean war could be rephrased as civil war of korean district of Japan. Liancort Rocks is involved in the war　as disputed aera.
References 3 [2] is not historical materials but KBS think that in November 1951 is in the midst of the Korean War.Cease-fire talks faced  such a hard going.--Forestfarmer 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i disagree with moving this to the article. after it's corrected for spelling & grammar, & properly wikified, this should be integrated into Dokdo, because that's what the timeline is about, not this article. thanks. Appleby 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry and I'm not native but I don't understand your writing.please write concrate exsample .This Time Line include your writing and historical bacdrop.spelling is as source.--Forestfarmer 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks for concrate exsample."untrid" is no source.I can not found authority. armistice (excepted South Korea) is from japanese wiki page "Korean war".Korean president didn't attend signing ceremony and I worte so.if you thougth South Korea agreed on an armistice,I reedit that point.--Forestfarmer 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time line

message: I corrected the Rusk Documents in the Article. 
and here is a full text.
--Carl Daniels 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the full text as it's found on Wikisource and linked from Rusk documents. There's no need to have it here cluttering up the talk page for no reason. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full text

message: This section deal with internal documents and external documents
Usualy external documents is not dnied by internal documents. Do you think so? --Forestfarmer 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think that the final Treaty is what matters but I do't know but If you would treat honest and accurate about Rusk documents.you should discuss this note or Treaty of San Franciscol or you made INTERNAL DOCUMET section . It is not external documents not to contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side.I don't understand what you alleged.--Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal documents and External documents

message: Please leave the paragraphs as they are now in order to make the intro appear more aesthetically pleasing. Splitting the third paragraph ruins the balance of the intro. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aesthetic appearance of intro

message: In International Law, only the treaty is effective. After the SF treaty, the United States is the same as the third country about territory of Japan. I think that it should delete these meaningless descriptions on International Law.--Opp2 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The dispatch from the U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo and CIA documents

message: Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If other side's insistence was nothing,I think to be the best as It is.--Forestfarmer 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: I have removed much of the "Location on International Law" section.
1. It is unintelligible, badly spelled, and suffers from poor punctuation rendering it meaningless and better deleted.
2. It appears POV
3. It is missing citations
Particularly poor is "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time."
This is clear POV, lacking in citation, and interpretation of international law, which I sincerely doubt given the level of English displayed that the writer is qualified to do. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to interpret law, simply to state it.
What is clear is that this is a communication, not a signed 'agreement'. It may state the U.S. government's own interpretation of their position, but under not stretch of the imagination can I see this document 'confirming' anything legally regarding any treaties. 
There may be precedents in other cases such as the Norway / Denmark dispute, but this does not mean Wikipedia can say 'X is true because Y was true'. There are two many other factors that may render these two differently in a court case (who made the communication drafts, the claimants or someone else etc.) . At best, mention the precedent - do not interpret it.
I suggest these whole article is looked at carefully because it seems to me to be a 'backdoor approach' to the whole Dokdo/Takeshima problem.
Macgruder 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Law section mainly deleted 

message: The South Korean government claims the sovereignty on Takeshima (Dokdo) based on the Syngman Rhee line. However, it is confirmed to have thought there is no description of Takeshima in the abandonment territory in Japan by this documents it is a territory in Japan in U.S. Government. Moreover, it had the intention that it is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after the war and the MacArthur line can be read. [4]
I deleted previous tail and added above sentence.and added Japanese forreign ministry link.Is it a problem ? --Forestfarmer 10:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence repeats material that's already included in the article in more appropriate sections.  I can't make heads or tails of the second or third sentences.  The Japanese foreign ministry link is already in the References list, so there's no need to keep inserting new sections to include it in.  --Reuben 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shade of meaning 

message: This may be similar case to the date of the independence of Korea issue.
"Dutch withhold apology in Indonesia", The Associated Press, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2005.
Until 2005, the independence date of Indonesia was Dec. 27, 1949 in the Netherlands (correspond to April 28, 1952 for Japan), not the de facto independence day, Aug. 17, 1945 (correspond to August 9, 1945 or 12 August, 1948 or March 1, 1919), that made Dutch apology to Indonesia for the colonial rule during Aug. 17, 1945 to Dec. 27, 1949. Jjok 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the relevance?  Does the US celebrate its independence from when it was recognized by the British?  Does Indonesia celebrate its independence from 1949 because the Dutch say so?  Of course not.  Korean independence is not defined by when a past colonizer formally recognizes it, any more than it is for other countries.  By the way, the independence of the Republic of Korea was recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1948.  This argument is really rather silly, especially since Korea calls August 15, 1945 "Liberation Day," not "Independence Day."  It seems that there's a lot of bizarre wrangling with words for no real goal other than to denigrate symbols of Korean independence. --Reuben 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, it really does make sense for "Liberation Day" to match V-J Day.  If we have a source picking at the choice of date, we could talk about it, but I don't think it will really belong on the Rusk documents page.  --Cheers, Komdori 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Reuben say that "Does the US celebrate its independence from when it was recognized by the British?  Does Indonesia celebrate its independence from 1949 because the Dutch say so?  Of course not." Exactly, this is a reason why these states support the "Declarative theory". However, this theory cannot explain case of Taiwan. The Governments of Taiwan, she control effectively her territory. She are not interfered by another country, and she express her state function perfectly. But she cannot become state because another country doesn't approve as a state. This becomes an insistence along of Constitutive Theory. Therefore, theories concerning an independent day are not yet united. By the way, the theory conflicts whether the United Nations approval becomes a recognition of states too. --Opp2 06:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this relate to the current article?  --Reuben 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only pointed out your ignorance. --Opp2 12:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you're arguing for the sake of argument, and to make yourself feel superior?  Take it elsewhere.  --Reuben 00:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch-Indonesia case

message: I'm strongly considering removing the entire background section. First, this is clearly cherry-picked to make this whole article be about the Liancourt Rocks issue, which is only part of what the Rusk documents are about. Second, we generally don't include sections like this. However, probably a better solution would be to use a single paragraph that puts the documents into context. I won't have time to do this in the near future...can anyone take a try at producing a neutral paragraph that only talks about why the documents were written, not what connection they may have to future documents or other Korean/Japanese relations? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Four months later, I've gone ahead and done this. I don't mind if people revert, but please start a discussion here at the same time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good idea. Maybe this article is inappropriate for Korean. However, you should not eliminate any fact. The fact should be mentioned as fact.--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: I would really like to see this information available in Korean. Any chance of this, or am I asking too much of the Korean people to critically share this information in their own language? Maybe this is like asking for an Arabic translation of Fifty Shades of Grey.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppayne (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to this page on Korean Wikipedia. I can't read that, but I know it's the same basic idea as WP:TRANSLATION; there should be some way to request this article be translated into Korean. Keep in mind, though, that English Wikipedia has more than 4 million pages, while Korean Wikipedia has only slightly more than 200,000, meaning that there are a lot of pages that could be translated from English to Korean. If you're trying to make some sort of back-handed accusation against Koreans, then just stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to one of my own lists for making Korean articles: :ko:사용자:WhisperToMe WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw Korean page, however, it's not translated well as expected. We should not expect Korean version in a positive way.--BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Standard around here is WP:AGF! The Banner talk 11:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no Korean translation for this page?