Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 1

message: * Investigating carefully, the dispute is mainly due to the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910. Essentially, the dispute is not founded. Escalating the dispute issue seems the attitude of the Japanese. Korean government have been taking ignoring Japanese claims until recently. --Jongbhak 04:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute of Dokdo

message: The attempt for Japan to once again attempt in 2005 to create an empire for internal political reasons makes this issue a very hot one. Readers are encouraged to look at this article as a way to understand the discussion which follows.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200503/kt2005031616153311950.htm
Readers as well should see the Wikipedia article on the situation which became the "Falklands War", and which had a similar approach to the occupation of a small series of islands which provoked a war between the United Kingdom and Argentina when those islands were invaded and occupied by civilians attempting to reclaim the land for internal political purposes to support a faltering economy.
It should be mentioned that these Korean islands are in the EAST SEA as named by both Koreas and China, but which Japan calls the "Sea of Japan" - the Tokto islands are within the East Sea, and it should be noted that Japan calls this by their own name, which indeed it may do, as they also call the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean by their own names, but this is particular to their country and does not reflect anything but Japanese opinion.
----
Blatantly POV paragraph excised from page:
However, it has been proved that the Japanese claims to the islets were recently created by altering ancient records, an illegal act by any standard. The Meiji Government of Japan also acknowledged that the Liancourt Rocks were Korean, and the Imperial Court of Japan even ruled at the time that "Our nation has nothing to do with Tokdo (Liancourt Rocks)." Records and geographical charts made by the Japanese military and European explorers at the time also clearly indicate that the Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory, and therefore prove that the Japanese claim is baseless. The Japanese claim that the Liancourt Rocks were ownerless is also, therefore, a false statement. Not only that, the the Allied forces even ruled in 1945 that "Japan return all territories it seized by power and greed." This treaty does not count only territories from 1910, when Korea was annexed as a part of Japan, but from 1895, when Japan aseized the Laotung Peninsula from China. The Liancourt Rocks, having been secretly annexed without the permssion or notification of Korea (contrary to the Japanese propoganda that the Koreans agreed), fit perfectly into this territory. Recent evidence about Japan's attempts to take Tokdo in the 1600's also proves that Japan does not have a historical link to the islands, but only wants the resources located near the islets.
Maybe the History section should be split into Japanese and Korean views, since it's very difficult to maintain a NPOV on this... Jpatokal 15:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire Building and the Falklands Islands precedent

message: I added Samguk Sagi.Kadzuwo 11:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samguk Sagi 

message: Two (2) links will be allowed for Korean viewpoints and Japanese viewpoints each, preferably official ones (*.gov).  I'm open to suggestions on which ones to pick. Jpatokal 05:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but I don't think anyone except Kunitaka thinks it's worth arguing about. :) Markalexander100 11:52, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links

message: The ROK prefers East Sea: see  (the Japanese government's own site). Both terms should be mentioned.  Markalexander100 05:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say it in Korean version, but not in English language websites. You must respect the decision of international society. kunitaka 8:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument makes no sense and you do not understand the meaning of the UNCSGN resolution, which applies only to areas owned by nations.  The Sea is international territory not owned by Japan or Korea.  This has been debated before, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Jpatokal 03:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: China does not own "the Yellow Sea", but we call it so. No one calls it "West Sea".  This rules applies to the Sea of Japan.kunitaka 04:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Koreans and the Chinese call it the Yellow Sea, and the name is not in dispute.  (Not that this matters, because the Liancourt Rocks are not in the Yellow Sea.)  Jpatokal 06:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The image was deleted by accident. Please post the image. Thank you.kunitaka 08:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea of Japan?

message: OK, let's try to get this hammered out once and for all...  as far as I see there are two issues:
# Naming order, as either "Japanese: Korean:" or "Korean: Japanese:"
# "Sea of Japan" or "East Sea of Korea"
My opinions are:
# The area is physically occupied by South Korea, so their name and their claim gets precedence.  I cite the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is listed under that name despite the fact that, and I quote, "All other governments and the United Nations recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island of Cyprus" and that the Greek Cypriots call it nasty things like the "Area Under Occupation By The Turkish Military".
# Likewise, the Koreans continue to call the Sea of Japan the "East Sea of Korea", so this must be mentioned.  Note that, for example, the link to the Korean Maritime Affairs Ministry's site about Dokdo uses the term "East Sea".
Jpatokal
:Yes. Fighting over which language to put first would probably constitute a lame edit war, but removing all reference to one side of the dispute is bizarre. Markalexander100 02:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution attempt

message: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/south_korea/south_korea.htm
#"the Yellow Sea" is appropriate name.
#"the Sea of Japan" is appropriate name.
#"the East China Sea" is appropriate name.
The West Sea, the East Sea, and the South Sea are the local name that Koreans use. Koreans can use those names in Korea, but not international society.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html
China, Japan, and Korea use Chinese characters. Both Japan and China express "the sea of Japan" using Chinese characters. Korea also use Chinese characters but express "the East Sea". It means "the East Sea" is local placename that Koreans use.
:"the East Sea" is local placename that Koreans use.  Exactly.   So it would be nice to mention what one party to the dispute calls the place. ;) Markalexander100 01:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "East Sea" is not a term in the Korean language; it's an English translation of the Korean term.  And in any case, Korea is not claiming possession of Tokyo! If you want a comparable example, look at Kuril_islands, which provides  both Japanese and Russian names.  Markalexander100 10:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant.  "Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)" is completely unambiguous. Jpatokal 17:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kunitaka`s message

message: Kunitaka, if we ask for neutral third-party 
arbitration of this issue, would you be willing to accept their results?  In other words, if they say "East Sea is OK" then you stop reverting...  and, of course, if they say "East Sea is not OK" then I (& MarkAlexander) stop reverting. Jpatokal 03:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: User:Kunitaka added the following p: However, the United States mentioned "This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."  Can you provide a source for this?  Who said this, when and where?  Jpatokal 01:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Google turns up only , which appears to be a post on a message board. Markalexander100 02:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: "A note to the Korean ambassador".   Not a policy document. Markalexander100 02:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The comments predate the events they are placed after in the article; the relevant period (1950) is already covered. Markalexander100 01:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I've removed K's paragraph and added a sentence to the United States policy section mentioning the existence of said documents.  If the entire FRUS is online somewhere it would be nice to link to them as well. Jpatokal 01:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: United States quote

message: 220.73.165.80's recent edit had some information which might be useful in it; I've reverted for now because in adding the info the previous article was erased.   But it's there in the history to be incorporated. Markalexander100 09:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution from 220.73.165.80 

message: Regarding thumb|A 220 year-old Japanese map clearly displaying the Liancourt Rocks as part of Korea, in the interest of fairness a map showing the Liancourt Rocks as a part of Japan should also be included. Jpatokal 02:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all clear to me that that map even shows the Liancourt Rocks!  If anything, the circled island looks more like Ulleungdo, a Korean island that is not currently disputed. Reuben 05:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map images 

message: >According to Imperial Korean records, Samguk Sagi 
This is historically incorrect as except for brief period in 19th century, no nation in Korean Peninsula was ever an empire. In all Chinese, Japanese, and Korean records, Korea have had kingdoms but not an empire. This is like claiming that there was "Emperor Arthur" in UK because British Empire existed at later time. Revth 14:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On "Imperial" 

message: I would like to add more links (Information & news related):
 
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/index.html
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050321/4/1y6sb.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=593593
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/24/eng20050324_178043.html
No intention for dispute, but provide information about condition of the islands, but we will classify further about the links of which sub-category they belong to, within the external links category. Isn't that all right?
What's wrong with adding links hosted by Koreans? It does not necessarily mean siding with Korea's POV at all.
Mr Tan, 13:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The news articles don't really belong here.  This is an encyclopedia; try Wikinews instead. Jpatokal 17:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: * Please stop removing contents without stating valid explanations in summary or discussion. If you would like to contest the legitimacy of an existing content, then state so with reliable source to back up your contestation.
* Please provide citations of primary sources (such as the name of historical documents) for the contents you add wherever possible, esp. when the new contents are to replace the existing ones. 
* Stick to stating objective facts only, and try not to make a political judgement as to how those facts support the political claim of either side, Korean or Japanese. Leave the judgement to readers. Hermeneus 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection (March 29, 2005) 

message: ::"However, modern historians question this claim of management, since it contradicts the validity of the 1905 Japance incorporation of the Liancort Rocks under the doctrine of terra nullius (ownerless land)."
The section under which the above is written is not one to examine the consistency of the claim of the Japanese government today. This is a section to state the historical facts relevant to the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. Move the criticism to a more appropriately titled section.
::"Strangely enough, other Japanese maps of the same period often do not include...."
The original proponent of this criticism is Professor Kim Mun-Gi, who is already mentioned in earlier editions in more details than this.
::"According to Historical Geography of Great Japan..."
Again, the original proponent of this criticism is Park Young-Sik, who also is already mentioned in earlier editions in more details than this.
::"On October 25th, 1900, the Korean royal government, after..."
Original description is much more detailed on this incident, with link to the image of the actual document of the Imperial Ordinance. Hermeneus 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the edits by 218.48.41.160

message: There has been no discussion on this talk page in over three days, so I've removed the page protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected 3 Apr 2005

message: Don't revert the Geography; it needs cleanup and the georaphy name is better.
Mr Tan 20:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Dokdo 

message: Please do not revert the External Links, as I feel that we should not restrict ourselves to equality just because of the dispute. However, I feel that we should add more links, irrespective of Korean or Japanese, rather for the sake of human knowledge, as wikipedia is a knowledge, not dispute center.
Also, the link
* Korean Government's Policy About Dokdo is a dead one, and has to be replaced
Mr Tan 12:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links 

message: I remove the category Islands of Japan because:
* Dokdo is currently under Korean control, although Japan lay claim to it. (Compare with (Pedra Branca and Tsushima Islands) However, I will not remove it from the disputed territory, as it is indeed disputed. The Islands of Japan category should only be put back up only when Japan lay control to the islands. 
* If there is significant objections, I will not mind having it back, but if any of you agrees or disagrees, please vote here if you wish to.
Mr Tan 14:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Japan_korea_physical_map_2.png
Location of Takeshima in this image is false. Takeshima is not close to Ulleungdo that much.
This map would be help.(Commonsenses 14:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the current map looks like one that somebody made by hand for the article, and it's clearly got Tokdo in the wrong place.  Your map has Tokdo / Takeshima in the right place, but the coastline of South Korea appears to be wrong for latitudes north of Ulleungdo.  Reuben 07:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False map