Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 13

message: :An 18th century map of Korea drawn by the Chosun court. 2 islands in the approxamite locations of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks can be seen to the east of Korea.
This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map. According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (??/???? ?·????, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane), it is one of ???????? (Chosen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by ????? and published in 1875 (??8?) by ??????, ?????, and ?????? (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14'N, 131°52'E (Liancourt Rocks, ???????????) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I overlapped this map with an actual position. --Opp2 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:18thcenturydokdo.jpg]]

message: This historical inaccuracy in your Liancourt Page should be changed. I've previously commented on this mistake on your page and didn't receive response. 
Your website reads:
In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hosen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following:
Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.
Nowhere in Saito Hosen's 1667 report does it say "Matsushima" is the northwest boundary of Japan. It states "Thus, this "?" is the northwest boundary of Japan.
The character "?" in Kanji (chinese based-characters) means area or province. If you read the text of Saito Hosen't report he used the character "?" to denote province and used the character "?" to mean island. 
In the last line of his report Saito Hosen states. "Viewing Korea from Takeshima~Matsushima is the same as viewing Oki Province from Shimae Province. This this "?" province or area markes the northern boundary of Japan. 
Saito Hosen used the fact Korea was visible from Ulleungdo~Dokdo as a visual method to deem these islands as excluded from Japan not as her boundary. Why would the fact Korea was visible from Ulleungdo~Dokdo make them part of Japan?
This interpretation is also viewed by Korea Professor Shin Yong Ha in this website.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
On page 8 of this publication Mr Sean Fern's publication can also be seen the Professor Shin's translation that the 1667 Report on Oki should be translated to mean Oki Island was declared as Japan's boundary.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
Scroll down to chapter 10 on this article by Japanese Professor Hideki Kajimura and you can see some Japanese also support the Korean interpretation of the 1667 Report on Oki by Saito Hosen
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura.hwp
Here is an explanation and the original document of Saito Hosen's report.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
Here is the Japanese text, an English translation and an explanation of the document to help you understand what many Korean and Japanese historians now say is a more likely interpretation of Saito Hosen's report.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/saito-oki-text3.jpg
Please consider these changes supported by the aforementioned citations.
Clownface 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Incorrect Translation on your Liancourt Rocks Page 

message: If ever there is a dispute, please talk here & call others. (Wikimachine 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes? 

message: I see that both countries are claiming the island as theirs..but what are their evidences? Can anybody like enlighten me on the subject..cuz i hav no clue.
I think the korean side of the argument is that they shud hav it back because JApan had to give back all territories to korea after the surrender..but what's the japanese side of the argument? Korea missed a document or sth?
Lunaholik 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what was the dispute??? 

message: The sentence
:'Japanese scholars interpret the latter part as "come into view [from mainland Korea]" in the context of the whole text.{ { Fact | date = June 2007 } }'
is moved from the article because it is not verified since 4 June 2007. Jtm71 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: I do believe that Japan has no current administration on that Island. wouldn't it be appropriate to remove Japan as an administer to Dokdo?
It would make much more sense to consider the liancourt rocks a claimed islet, not a territory under the administration of Japan. Odst 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your insistence is KPOV. Because Japan insist present occupation by Korea is illegal. The protest and registration in the cadaster are one of the important exercises of sovereignty and administration on International Law. It would make much more sense to consider the liancourt rocks a claimed islet, a territory under the one-sided occupation by Korea despite Japan's protests.--Opp2 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not having administration on the island doesn't not mean not having administration. Liancourt Rocks would include the sea around it for administration purposes. Including Japan as an administration gives important information for readers to understand that Japan regards Liancourt Rocks as part of a particular prefecture. The text already makes it clear that Korea at present 'occupies' the islands. Occupation ? Administration. Make a new occupation 'box' if you wish but leave the administration as is. Macgruder 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to emphasize one-sided occupation by Korea, it is necessary to emphasize the protests by Japan for NPOV because the protest has a legal effect to make the occupation meaningless--Opp2 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: STOP!! Cannot you understand the subject of the subpart? The subject of this part is  whether to describe only present one-sided occupation by Korea. Here is not a place where your fantasy novel and your original rule about territtorial title without objective judicial precedent is written.--Opp2 07:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 124.80.112.73 This is a just a POV rant. Find your legitimate sources etc etc.Macgruder 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting. But this POV stuff belongs on your blog not Wikipedia. Find a respected source. Macgruder 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  administration.  

message: Is it okay if I change administration in the infobox to Disputee Nations? If you have a better term to call it, please make the change right away, but for now I will use that term. Odst 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I change my mind ; I'll wait for a better suggestion. Odst 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! 

message: This map is attached map of this document.  The title of this document is "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories". This document is not a draft of a peace treaty. I think this was prepared for the determination based on the Potsdam declaration clause 8. 
Potsdam declaration
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.
However, any Allies did not sign this document. It is uncertain whether this document was distributed to other Allies. I think that the map and document which even the date and the manufacturer are uncertain is needless. Rusk documents that is an official diplomatic document might be more important. In addition, a present footnote is very inaccurate. I will delete this map if there is no rebuttal.--Opp2 04:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, rusk document made by japanese robbie. and that document does not have "effect of international law". also, in 1945, US-Japan relation much favor than US-Korea relation. in that period, US did not know about korea. also, in that time, us and korea were NOT ally. US was not favor to Korea(than japan). see Dutyterms 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Donot change the subject. Did you understand this map was not a draft?Did you understand the union country did not agree?--Opp2 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure what a link to an expedition 75 years before the treaty "proves" (see American Revolutionary War for "proof" that the US and UK were enemies in WWII).  The problem is much simpler--don't interpret, document.  Get some nice citations and we can include more information. --Cheers, Komdori 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: SCAPIN is being written. However, draft5 is not found. Cannot you distinguish SCAPIN and the peace treaty?--Opp2 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this map a draft of the peace treaty?