Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dokdo

message: The conflicts are primarily results of Opp2's extreme JPOV stance.
*Opp2 can't stand how "Japan disputes the S. Korean jurisdiction" & advocates "Japan and S. Korea disputes over the..." instead. Grammatically & in plain logics, S. Korea doesn't have to dispute its own claim when it has complete right over the island. 
*Opp2 states that "despite Japanese protest" must be included in conjunction with the statement "controlled by S. Korea" (similarly worded) within the same sentence. "Japan protests/disputes" is already included in the introduction, but Opp2 insists on phrasing the words that way because "it leaves a more lasting impression" and it's international NPOV (never heard of). Opp2's suggestion makes the introduction sound really really awkward.
*International POV: Opp2 says that without directly acknowledging Japanese protest, its validity of protest becomes ignored (???). I personally have no idea on what he's talking about, but if he sees this article as a vehicle to contest S. Korea's sovereignty over the island, no. S. Korea owns the island, just like Japan owns Tsushima & there's nothing that can be done about it.
*References: Opp2 reverts my edit that include hours of work that resulted in genuine references. I'm not even sure if Opp2 ever looked at them, but he says that I never consulted with him over the POVness of the references... It seems that he's taking "revenge/comeback" for me rejecting his references with valid reasons. All he told me was "I'll talk to the mediator". (Wikimachine 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 

message: Sorry I'm late but I want to leave my short comment. Basically I like the current opening paragraph as-is. It has been established to the current form after long discussion. However, Opp2 raised objections against using the term 'terra nullius' in the paragraph. It was meant that although some scholars used the term to describe the situation at that time, official Japanese position never used the term. If this claim is correct, I can accept to modify that part without using the term 'terra nullius'. Other than that, I don't see much need to modify the opening paragraph. Opp2's referring to international law and details are not appropriate in the opening paragraph. Those can be mentioned in a proper length balanced with what Korean side says later. Opening paragraph is to introduce an object and the status quo of the object in a concise way. No more than that should be included and that was what's been discussed and came to the concensus for the current one. Ginnre 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Ginnre|Ginnre]] 

message: Please write Dokdo Introduction below according to you with citing all the references and using proper grammer in proper format. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dokdo Introduction 

message: Dokdo (Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) whose sovereignty remains unsettled.  The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954 despite repeated protests by Japan. 
 
 
 
 
 
Takeshima is the Japanese name, officially given when Japan incorporated it into the Shimane Prefecture in 1905. And Dokdo is the Korean name, which the Koreans formally gave in 1906, after Japan notified them of its incorporation.
  The islets had been also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English, since the French whaling ship charted the islets in 1849.
Japanese claims are based on seventeenth century records and a reconfirmation of their intent to incorporate it into the Shimane Prefecture, as they did in 1905.
Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.
Korean claims are based on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do.
Meaning of "critical date":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. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation.
--Opp2 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPP2's PROPOSAL 

message: Current paragraph as-is without the term 'terra nullius' or Wikimachine's. Ginnre 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ginner's Suggestion 

message: Wikimachine mentions in the first paragraph of the intoduction: In English, the South Korean government refers to Dokdo as "Dokdo" with citing a reference. The statement itself is confusing and the reference also does not make a clear-cut idea. Please either cite the proper reference or modify the line accordingly. In addition to that, if other parties want to propose other intoduction then they could make it within two more days. The introduction after 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's confusing w/ common daily logic/etc. but really that's the best I could go in order to show how the two Korean government refer to the island officially. So, what you mean by proper reference is an official paper from the S. Korean government? The citation is from the S. Korean government's English website, Korea.net. (Wikimachine 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed and deadline to produce introduction