Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 5

message: Japanese source, Korean site. Check it out: http://english.kbs.co.kr/society/news/1400373_11773.html  HistoryManiac 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the article. Its going to get interesting. Good friend100 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not new. This article only shows that there is some Japanese who support Korean POV. That is Freedom of speech. I have read about alternative understanding of the name of islands many times  . --Isorhiza 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New evidence? 

message: there is a related discussion and poll on the naming of one of the features around dokdo, currently underway at Talk:Tsushima Basin. please participate if interested. only editors with at least 100 previous edits & one-month history will be able to vote. Appleby 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the notice. Good friend100 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how do you know how many edi ts you have had? Oyo321 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a link called "User contributions" or something like that in the toolbox when you go to your talk page. Rōnin 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notice of poll 

message: Whew, even as a Korean, I can see that there are waaaay too many Korean sources, against around 1-3 Japanese ones. Is that one of the reasons for the POV notice? --Anarkial 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: one of many reasons, i think we'll just have to accept the tag as a permanent feature. korean sources are probably more numerous because korea actually claims a longer history and administered the islands for the last half century, what with the tourism, fishing, nominal residents, cellular towers, etc., just generates more relevant info, as with other disputed territories actually administered by one party. the standard is relevance and reliability, not a 50/50 quota. Appleby 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that not all the references referenced in the article actually appear in the References section.    There are 84 references linked altogether, of which ten appear in the References section, five appear in the Notes section, and the remainder are inline external links.   If someone converted the inline external links to proper footnotes, then we could judge the referencing issue much better. HenryFlower 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think that, but maybe other people do, and would like to see other sources in there. I don't doubt Korean news sources either, it's just that people might not bother to check if they were true or not, and looking at the number of Korean sources, might be biased towards discreditability. Now that I see the reasons though, I agree with you. --Anarkial 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of Korean sources gives an impression to all users that Korea's "claims" to the island are stronger than japanese claims. Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've been keeping silent on the recent edits on this topic since I reverted the article, but the situation has gone out of hand. Now, every piece of evidence I have added has been literally shredded apart and tagged with statements like "but Japanese scholars dispute this based on..." regardless of whether the cited credentials are solid or not. It seems as if every Japanese Wikipedian is determined to deny every proof Koreans come out with for the sake of their nationalistic viewpoint. A few examples (again):
* Inserted "Korea argues that Dokdo was called Usan-do and was a part of Usan-guk, based on later Joseon dynasty records. Japan argues that Dokdo was not a part of Usan-guk, disputing the interpretation of the later records."-I have never seen a Japanese argument that includes refutation of the Joseon Dynasty's records. I'm sure that this has been at the very least elaborately fabricated again by Japanese nationalist editors of Wikipedia. This statement will have to go.
* Moved "Man'gi yoram ("Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the earlier Yeojiji ("Gazette") that Ulleungdo and Dokdo all belonged to Usan-guk. [42]"-This belongs to the Three Kingdoms section becuase it is directly related to the Samguk Sagi reference to Usan-guk. Moving it to the Joseon/Edo section disasscoiates it from the Usan-guk dispute, and thus makes it less relevant to the topic.
* "They argue that Usan-do refers to Juk-do, which they say was the Korean government's interpretation in Ahn's dispute (see below)."-The Korean government never took the position that Juk-do was Usan-do, and there is no information below to refer to as promised by the note in parantheses.
* Inserted "On the Korean cartographs Tonguk Chido (by Chong Sang-gi, 1678~1752) , Heajwa Chondo (1822), and Tongguk chondo (by Kim Tae-gon, 1821~1846), Usando is displayed. From the Korean point of view, this islet is Dokdo, but japan construe as Jukdo(chukdo) from the distance, shape, size, and direction.[45]"-Not only are the rules of English grammar mutilated here, the only source the person who added to the part behind the comma is a map. There are no sources or links that use the map to create a cohesive argument against why Usan-do is Dokdo. If you want to add in an argument against the Usando=Dokdo claim, cite a source that presents the argument itself, not some meaningless map. Other maps added on this article are used to portray the maps that are mentioned, and do not constitute arguments alone. Besides, "shape, size, and direction" are very arbitrary terms; Dokdo is in the east of Ulleungdo on the three maps noted above (as it is very much today), its size correspponds relatively to the Dokdo of today when compared with Ulleungdo, and its shape is a circle, as every other island in ancient cartographs. Thus, that cleverly sneaked statement is meaningless; it should also be garbaged.
* Changed "Dokdo" to "Ulleungdo" in the statement "Arriving in Japan, Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that Ulleung-do was a Korean possession.[50][51]"-The news article links say that Dokdo was the area prohibited to Japanese fisherman, clearly indicating Japanese POV vandalism.
Once again, I urge that somebody put this article up for protection until all the vandalism of information be stemmed. I also warn future Japanese Wikipedians that, if not anybody else, I myself will personally not tolerate efforts to ruthlessly distort correct information that is rightfully due to the users of Wikipedia.--Jh.daniell 02:04, 8 June 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)
::Why don't you tell Opp about your defense of Korean records. Good friend100 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that it is not the job of wikipedia to discuss who is "right". It is to simply put the views of each side forward in this area. John Smith's 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Arguments 

message: I reopened up this discussion I started because it just got archived.
Anyways, why did Japan grant rights to go fish at Dokdo? If they considered Dokdo as Korean land, why did they grant the rights to go fish there? Good friend100 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dokdo has always been rumored to contain resources of all kinds, escpecially rich fishing grounds. Because Japan and Korea are both countries dependant on fishing (japan a little more), Japan's fishing ground perimeters will be GREATLY extended, if Dokdo was under their control. Japan very badly needed the fishing grounds, and it was likely that Japan broke the agreement Oyo321 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the archive for an explanation of the reason why a Japanese citizen would need permission to fish around Dokdo.  I suppose the question could also be asked...  if Japan did not claim Dokdo, why would it have granted permission to fish there?  Heck, if you're Korean, and want to be quickly arrested today, take a boat and land on Dokdo.  Bets are you won't even be able to reach the island before the coast guard cutters reach you and order you to turn back. Does this mean that Korea does not claim Dokdo today?  --Zonath 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? (Wikimachine 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, you're missing the point slightly.  In a feudal society, such as 17th century Japan, just about nobody is free to do anything without the leave of their lord.  Thus, permission was needed.  In addition, the paragraph you cited states that "feudal tenure" was given to the fishermen over Ulleungdo and Dokdo, which means that the Shogun must have considered the islands either a) Japanese territory or (more likely, since they were uninhabited) b) up for grabs.  Feudal tenure means that the Shogun gave those lands to the fishermen (it's a bit more complex than that, but basically, that's what it is).  Like I said before...  try to go to Dokdo without special permission.  I will be very surprised if you don't get arrested before you can even reach the islets.  Does this mean Korea doesn't consider Dokdo to be their territory?  Of course not.  At any rate, it may seem odd by today's standards that you would need permission to go anywhere inside your own country, but it would really be a mistake to interpret facts from 17th Century Japan in the same way.  Japan in the 17th Century was a place where freedom of movement was very severely restricted and the average Japanese peasant was not allowed to travel freely except on pilgrimages.  Sure, it seems odd by today's standards, but that's feudalism for you.  --Zonath 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Zonath above- Zonath, you can access Dokdo from Ulleung-do. There is currently a ferry ride available for those who want it for touring. Obviously you would be "arrested" or denied right to travel to Dokdo without permission. Again, its just that you cannot travel to Dokdo individually, but only from the ferry ride that leaves from Ulleungdo. Oyo321 02:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that the ferry only circled the islets rather than actually landing on them.  --Zonath 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the ferry trip allows only a view of the island. From your above statement, the Japanese did not claim Dokdo but allowed fishermen to fish there. Fishing is done from the boats, not directly on the island. So, the fact that there is even a ferry route that offers only viewing, the island is Korean land. There is no national, direct link to Dokdo. There is also a heli pad, which served purposes for the couple living on Dokdo. Oyo321 17:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you'll go back to my post above, you'll see that I did say that the Japanese claimed Dokdo, since the grant of a feudal tenure to the islets implies a claim of ownership.  Of course, this assumes that the facts presented are accurate, and has little to no bearing on the present ownership of the islets.  --Zonath 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you could locate the source and post it here, I'm sure it would be helpful to the discussion.  --Zonath 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission to go to Dokdo-continued 

message: I have read books in my local library, that shows ancient Korean writing etched onto rocks in Dokdo. This gives evidence that Dokdo has been inhabited during Usanguk period. Oyo321 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could locate the source and post it here, I'm sure it would be helpful to the discussion.  --Zonath 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient  Writing

message: I've converted all of teh references and reference links to the new <reference> format, and now they need cleaning up a bit as there are multiple references to the same article which are listed multiple times in the References section. If someone could do that, I'd appreciate it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: irrespectible of what is common name in English speaking community?  
probably, japanese won't insist so strongly to the name Takeshima, or Senkaku Islands, or even Honshu Island, if what is used is the common English name, because this is English Wikipedia. I guess that it is a kind of expansionism, but I cannot find good verifiable source yet. --Isorhiza 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially the title...can you explain it? thanks Good friend100 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you don't understand. I simply pointed out the fact that Korean want the Liancourt Rocks to be called Dokto. Korean want the Sea of Japan to be called East Sea (of Korea). Korean want the Tsushima Basin to be called Ulleung Basin. Korean want the Tsushima Island to be called Daemado. Korean want China to write Seaul as 首尔 not 漢城. These are all verifiable and not my opinion or research. What is next? Will they need the Pacific should be called the East Ocean (of Korea)? Will they need Eurasia Continent to be called West Continent of Korea or Korean equivalent word? --Isorhiza 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comment is a vile description of a neighboring country in which you are probably related to. This is unacceptable behavior that I would have least expected from the mouth of a Japanese.
Oyo321 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country 

message: In English newspapers the islets are commonly written as "Liancourt Rocks".
See CIA fact book 
:Mythologia:  If you wouldn't mind writing new topics on the bottom of the talk page.  I moved it here if that's okay with you.  If you look in the archives at the top of this page, I would assume #5, then you will see this has been discussed.  I believe that Dokdo is more common based on search engine results.  Tortfeasor 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The islets are less commonly known as the "Liancourt Rocks" in English.???