Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 6

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)
replies: text: even at the bbc, try their search. most articles only use dokdo/takeshima, while only some articles mention the alternative liancourt, only after mentioning dokdo/takeshima. the current version does accurately indicate that liancourt is an alternate, but less common, name. Appleby 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The islets are less commonly known as the "Liancourt Rocks" in English.??? 

message: I just undid the Archive 5 because the oldest message in there was about 6 days old (going all the way back to June 22, 2006!). Please do not archive current discussions. Only archive discussions where the last post is at least two weeks old, though it's recommended that you do not archive more than once a month. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the page because it was larger than 32K (see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page "Additionally, large talk pages are a burden for users with slow Internet connections, and some users may not be able to edit pages larger than 32 kB because of browser page size limits."). I archived it  using move which moves the page with history into the archive. I did  this because on examining earlier archives, there were some irregularities and I did not want any accusations that the archive was not a fair one. You can not hide Archive 5 without hiding the history of the page. So please do not blank it again. If you had asked why I had done it before naking your changes then I could have explained this to you. I copied back the most recent conversation, the rest are now more than a week old and available in the archive for anyone else who needs them--Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not archive current discussions

message: Please keep the political rhetoric off Wikipedia. This is not the place to get in a fight (whther verbal or otherwise). Political discussions that have nothing to do with improving the articles here on WIkipedia will be deleted without notice. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not debate international relations (except as they specifically have to do with specific content in a specific article). Thank you for not posting political comments here or elsewhere on Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.. let's keep the discussion about Dokdo, not about political relationship between Korea and Japan. The page is starting to tilt toward the latter... Deiaemeth 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, but it is very hard not to be political on this issue. Someone is vandalizing the article these days, again. ginnre 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is hard not to debate in a political sense. Koreans would obviously side with Dokdo and Japanese people would obviously side with Takeshima. Good friend100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it's hard not to debate in a political sense. But it's easy not to debate political issue which is not related to this article. The discussion of "Koizumi's apology", "Why Koreans are angry" are not related to this article. So, we shouldn't talk about political issue like that. Gegesongs 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To keep the political rhetoric off Wikipedia, Why don't you move "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks"?
We shouldn't write article in "Dokdo" or "Takeshima".
We need write article in "Liancourt Rocks", then "Takeshima" and "Dokdo" redirect to "Liancourt Rocks" . 
IP Addr:220.110.236.194(Japan) 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No political discussions, please

message: Dokdo are islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea)and disputed area between Korea(Dokdo) and Japan(Takesima).The islets are the "Liancourt Rocks" in English. The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to Dokdo as Tok Islet in its English-language articles[1] and control of the islands by "the Korean nation" but a territory in Japan  on international low. The islet's is declared by Korea as a territory  before Japan abandonment territory of Korea,is not included Dokto,by Treaty of Peace With Japan.Thus This dispute began since Korean declaration. South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.
announce:I would like to edit this writing to opening paragraph.do anyone argue this opning paragraph ?--Forestfarmer 12:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, same objections as before.  I expect that this would be reverted.  Actually, this version is even less neutral, because it explicitly endorses a Japanese point of view by saying "but a territory in Japan on international low." --Reuben 15:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were not quite satisfid with above paragraph.more clearly write the point.Are you really discuss with me ?I am felt only in putting off the conclusion. Rusk documents and Treaty of San Francisco account for Takesima's territory in Japan on international low.if you thought that It is not neutral. you have to account.--Forestfarmer 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph you wrote above isn't neutral at all, though. It simply agrees with Japan. Please just leave it as it is for now. If you feel that any part of it isn't neutral enough, could you please state why? Rōnin 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Srrroy,I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't have to argue with you about whether Korea or Japan has a stronger claim to the Liancourt Rocks.  We just need to write an article describing the dispute, not adjudicate it.  Your version says "but a territory in Japan on international low," which simply endorses the Japanese view.  That's the opposite of neutral.  --Reuben 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, please Write opposite veiw on International low clearly and simply.I would discuss then.--Forestfarmer 01:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My views on international law are irrelevant.  So are yours.  This isn't a legal forum, it's an encyclopedia. --Reuben 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understood meaning of words but I feel your terrible confidence.Sad to write,I think The difference of the idea to International Law between South Korea and Japan then make This disput.Do you want to say korea don't keep international low ? It is exposed Korea breaking International low.When discussing it by an unreasonable theory.You should write though South Korea should observe International Law.--Forestfarmer 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening paragraph (3)

message: where is the evidence and the location on International Law? ginnre ,are you foolish man also ?--Forestfarmer 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just make fun of yourself. I pointed out why your claim cannot be used to change the opening paragraph many times. But you just don't listen (or respond to those points) and repeat what you have been repeating. Who gave you the authority to notice like this? you really don't know how arrogant and childish you are? And you think you defeated me. For heaven's sake! I didn't fight against you. Don't repeat your notice. Otherwise I need to find a way to ban you from writing in this article. You're just vandalizing. Evidences are enough on this page. ---ginnre 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry,I wrote above changing point.and old ver also too but To tell the truth, the change point has already been mentioned more above.who is doing childlike act(^_^;) --Forestfarmer 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but The Cairo Conference do not have the force of law on international law.it is only press release--Forestfarmer 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This discussion has become too long because of lack of understandings from both sides. But the opening paragraph must be left because the information is true, and even if it is POV, the fact that Japan is merely claiming it is true as well. Good friend100 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you think this is only Japanse POV but South Korea broked International Law in Takeshima disput. So as the result reluctant.This is international POV and neutral POV.--Forestfarmer 02:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yor're hopeless. You may use your opening paragraph somewhere in the Japanese goverment's official website, but not here. Don't repeat your childish act. Ginnre 15:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disscuss with a kid.If you cannot concretely explain your feelings.Tt is ONLY YOUR FEELING.--Forestfarmer 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is my feeling? It is your inability to understand what I have written, not my feeling. Ginnre 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi baby.when you insist,you bing evidence usually.write Japanese goverment's official website link.and for comparison, Korean goverment's official website link too.--Forestfarmer 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening paragraph (9)

message: This discussion, to me, is turning out way too repetitive. We've been discussing these things over and over and over again. For example, how long have we been arguing over names Dokdo-Liancourt-Takeshima? If we're to make this discussion more meaningful, I suggest we start arguing ove evidence that I have not heard at least twice, or end this war entirely. Oyo321 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit silly considering that Japan's East Sea region lies on the other side of Japan, though. It would be so much better if they could come up with a common name. Just saying. Rōnin 11:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well..."East Sea" would not be really neutral, but China supports the fact that it should be the East Sea since it is east to them as well. I agree a common name would compromise it but that is highly unlikely. Good friend100 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: East Sea would be appropriate and a neutral name for the sea. Like I mentioned before, the Sea of Japan is named only because Japan wanted it to, and Japan is well known in the world, so nobody would compete with Japan for their naming of a natural body of water. Oyo321 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I was just thinking of the Tokai region, which is apparently nearby the Pacific ocean, and not by the East Sea. Imagine having a sea called the East Sea to the West and a piece of land called the East Sea to the East. Enough to make one dizzy. ☺ Rōnin 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It also seems there's a Japanese region called "中国" ("middle country", but also "China"). Poor folks! Rōnin 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Then why don't you start a poll 69.222.52.114 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think... Oh, wait, is that irony or not? Rōnin 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Oyo321 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a compromise name: it's called the 청해 (靑海 or Blue Sea), which is another historical name for it. This article recommends the name for international use while letting the two countries continue to use their own names for the sea. Mithridates 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. To live is to learn! Who knows, maybe in 100 years... Rōnin 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeating Things

message: Here is a link I found. There is information that could help on Korean-Japanese controversies.  Good friend100 03:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: don't paste link unrelated to Liancourt Rocks.What would you insist ?--Forestfarmer 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to want to maintain his opinion somehow or other. Gegesongs 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is serious. where is evidence ? Where shall we appeal ? --Forestfarmer 02:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its either in the archives or too old for it to be in the history of this talk page. You don't have to appeal. The vandalism just weakened the Japanese side. It didn't do anything else. Good friend100 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese Vandalism and Korean anti-Japanese sentiment are irrelevant to Liancourt Rocks. We should concentrate on the argument of Liancourt Rocks. The link you pasted is aimed for a bias against the Japanese. I believe that it is necessary to exclude the bias. Gegesongs 03:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: his act is hard to understand. what would he be doing ?--Forestfarmer 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but I don't understand your act.is this section "link" ? what are your insistence?--Forestfarmer 07:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you say are irrevelent questions that just add more tension to both sides. >Forestfarmer Good friend100 01:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: are you broken radio ?--Forestfarmer 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Goodfriend's act is REALLY vandlism. Goodfriend, please Cool down and read WP:NOT and WP:Civil. --Junmai 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry,but I could not endure  his vandalism.--Forestfarmer 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link  

message: I think anyone(even Koreans) cannot appreciate the meaning of "Dokdo".
I think nobody knows.
So "Dokdo" the title of this articles should be changed to "Takeshima Islands" because "Takeshima" is the only formal international name for the islands since 1905. Anyone can understand they are somewhat islands at least. 
Otherwise it should be replaced to "Liancourt Rocks" because this Wikipedia is English version.
Koreans are too self-satisfied and too nationalistic to admit. 
Admins should not admit Koreans' violations like this.
Japanese have been only challenging to resolve the conflicts with very nationalistic Koreans without using any force. But it's always useless trying to persuade Koreans.
If Japanese could use force to resolve territorial problems, Japanese have done long long ago　like WW2.
How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans?
If admins of English Wikipedia don't accept Japanese fair claims about "Takeshima Islands", I think all Japanese would have the rights to drop the atomic bombs to USA and Korea at least three times. Do you hope that? I think you've already done.  
Besides I don't know the pronouciation of Korean name "Dokdo", "Ulleungdo", and so on. Can you(except Koreans) pronouciate them properly?
Furthermore who understand that "Dokdo" is the appropriate name for the islands. "Dokdo"(独島) means "a lonely(独) island(島)" in English. But there are two islands at least. It's too ridiculous!
On the other hand, "Takeshima islands(竹島 in Japanese)" means that the islands(島,shima) were used for one of relay stations to carry a lot of thick bampoos(竹,take) that were produced on the Ulleungdo(Ururun Islands in Japanese).
It is very clear which name is the best title to respect. Ithat is it's "Takeshima Islands" 
First of all, please put  at the top of this article. What terrible articles Koreans made one after another!
--⇒Shougiku Wine 01:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious with bombing? Don't be silly and read before you write. Otherwise how can you be so ignorant about what's going on on this page? Read before you write. Nobody except some Japanese here will listen to you and this kind of writing will be just ignored. Ginnre 02:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans? How long cosmopolitans have to endure the Koreans' tyrannical attitude? Read my sentences again and again, and accept the meanings of them properly.--⇒Shougiku Wine16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact Koreans have bombed again in spite of international alerts. Why do you ignore the famous Korean fact? How long Japanese can endure the humiliation by cruel Koreans? How long cosmopolitans have to endure the Koreans' tyrannical attitudes? Read my sentences again and again, and accept the meanings of them properly(if you can).--⇒Shougiku Wine17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have anything to say. The definition of "Dokdo" and what it means in its chinese form is irrevelent to this discussion. Good friend100 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say "I don't have anything to say, please don't say anything. This is, don't write anything. All right? And I think nobody can understand your sentences. What is more important, I think nobody can agree with Hwa-byung Korean attitudes that deny all fair discussions and only try to force Korean ideologies without discrimination. So I guess Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. --⇒Shougiku Wine17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean, it seemed that Koreans, Ginnre, User:Good friend100 and so on have proved again and again that Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. If not, "Dokdo" never become to the title and fixed unfairly, pushing "Takeshima Islands" and "Liancourt Rocks" aside. However Koreans insist hard as if "Dokdo(Takeshima Islands, Liancourt Rocks)" belongs to Korea, in fact, Koreans' silly talks have never been approved as the fact more than fifty years. It seemed that it is only the calm before the storm. In fact, the heart of the problem is no more than that Japanese have borne well the humiliation from Koreans more than fifty years. In other words, as far as there are international ways to settle amicably, Japanese have not want to resolve by resorting to force even territorial problems according to the restriction of japanese peaceful constitution. Therefore it is only that Japanese have kept the right to drop the atomic bombs to USA, Korea and so on. Why does South Korea have never sue Japan for the territorial rights of "Takeshima Islands(Dokdo)", though Japan has propose the settlement by international organization to South Korea since 1954? This fact has gone on proving worldwide that "Takeshima Islands" belong to Japan and Koreans are only thieves. --⇒Shougiku Wine19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from making racial attacks and racist comments on talk pages -- it is considered vandalism.  --Zonath 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What!? Are you OK? It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against peaceful Japanese and ignorant other people. If not so, "Dokdo" cannot become the title of the article "Takeshima Islands(LIancourt Rocks)". Are you serious? Are you kidding? I think you are serious, so I have to say, please consult a psychiarist at once. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet?  If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing to prove to you, and no desire to prove anything.  If you truly believe that Good Friend and myself are sockpuppets, then by all means, ask an administrator to investigate your suspicions.  As for your vandalism of this page through the making of personal attacks, racial attacks, and racist comments, if it continues, you will be referred to the administrators, and you may be blocked from editing as a result.  If you cannot maintain a civil tone on these talk pages, then feel free to keep your opinions to yourself.  --Zonath 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already refered him once for attempt to counter-AfD the AfD for Takeshima Islands and have amended the notice for his rather abusive language in his latest post here. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Overbearing! Typical Hwa-byung Korean pattern! --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Do you know the meaning of "discussion"? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why can you say "They are racist and POV", shutting your eyes to your own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know here is the discussion page? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is clear that Good friend100's comments are racism and out of NPVO. Are you joking? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against Japanese. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet?  If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences.  --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure everything is clear, Japan's population is not 1200 million (or anywhere close to that). As of 2005, the estimated population of Japan is 128,085,000 (or about 128 million)ref. The population of South Korea is 47,817,000 (or about 48 million)ref. If you add in North Korea's population (about 23 million)ref, the total population of the Korean Peninsula is about 71 million. However, this discussion has nothing to do with the respective populations of the countries involved. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality over quantity Shougi Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep quiet, Shogiku Wine, if you would like to be a patriot / nationalist. Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (I mean here English-speaking readers/editors who are free from Korean POV). That cannot resolve the situation. --Isorhiza 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would his comments be then? Resolving this situation would be to ignore him. And I'm not a nationalist. Shougoki Wine's comments just destroyed the relationship between the Dokdo and Takeshima side completely. Good friend100 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to write to ⇒Shougiku Wine, not to you. You should rather consider replying to the question about the maps which you showed. That island cannot be Dokto. --Isorhiza 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't write to Shougi. Why do you write, "Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (Japanese)" to Goodfriend who is not Japanese? Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess I can say that that island cannot be Takeshima also. Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you know the meaning of "Dokdo"? 

message: :I don't have anything to say. The definition of "Dokdo" and what it means in its chinese form is irrevelent to this discussion. Good friend100 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say "I don't have anything to say, please don't say anything. This is, don't write anything. All right? And I think nobody can understand your sentences. What is more important, I think nobody can agree with Hwa-byung Korean attitudes that deny all fair discussions and only try to force Korean ideologies without discrimination. So I guess Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. --⇒Shougiku Wine17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, it seemed that Koreans, Ginnre, User:Good friend100 and so on have proved again and again that Koreans are the farthest people from Wikipedians. If not, "Dokdo" never become to the title and fixed unfairly, pushing "Takeshima Islands" and "Liancourt Rocks" aside. However Koreans insist hard as if "Dokdo(Takeshima Islands, Liancourt Rocks)" belongs to Korea, in fact, Koreans' silly talks have never been approved as the fact more than fifty years. It seemed that it is only the calm before the storm. In fact, the heart of the problem is no more than that Japanese have borne well the humiliation from Koreans more than fifty years. In other words, as far as there are international ways to settle amicably, Japanese have not want to resolve by resorting to force even territorial problems according to the restriction of japanese peaceful constitution. Therefore it is only that Japanese have kept the right to drop the atomic bombs to USA, Korea and so on. Why does South Korea have never sue Japan for the territorial rights of "Takeshima Islands(Dokdo)", though Japan has propose the settlement by international organization to South Korea since 1954? This fact has gone on proving worldwide that "Takeshima Islands" belong to Japan and Koreans are only thieves. --⇒Shougiku Wine19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Fascism? part1 

message: :::Please refrain from making racial attacks and racist comments on talk pages -- it is considered vandalism.  --Zonath 19:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What!? Are you OK? It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against peaceful Japanese and ignorant other people. If not so, "Dokdo" cannot become the title of the article "Takeshima Islands(LIancourt Rocks)". Are you serious? Are you kidding? I think you are serious, so I have to say, please consult a psychiarist at once. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet?  If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing to prove to you, and no desire to prove anything.  If you truly believe that Good Friend and myself are sockpuppets, then by all means, ask an administrator to investigate your suspicions.  As for your vandalism of this page through the making of personal attacks, racial attacks, and racist comments, if it continues, you will be referred to the administrators, and you may be blocked from editing as a result.  If you cannot maintain a civil tone on these talk pages, then feel free to keep your opinions to yourself.  --Zonath 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already refered him once for attempt to counter-AfD the AfD for Takeshima Islands and have amended the notice for his rather abusive language in his latest post here. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Fascism? part2 

message: Stop your comments. They are racist and POV. Even if some editors listen to you, you are just humiliating yourself. Please stop the racist comments because you will be liable for being blocked for several days. Please don't put yourself into a position where you can get banned. Good friend100 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Overbearing! Typical Hwa-byung Korean pattern! --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Do you know the meaning of "discussion"? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why can you say "They are racist and POV", shutting your eyes to your own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know here is the discussion page? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is clear that Good friend100's comments are racism and out of NPVO. Are you joking? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is clear that Koreans like User:Zonath, User:Good friend100 and so on have been making racial attacks and racist comments against Japanese. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *User:Zonath and User:Good friend100 are Sockpuppet?  If you are not sockpuppet, answer the question respectively. Prove it. --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that Koreans who had been Japanese have the rights to get angry with Japanese? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do you think that the Korean name "Dokdo" become the title of the islands that is famous as "Takeshima Islands(竹島)"　for neighbour Japanese and known as "Liancourt Rocks" or someshing like that for other people? Write clear and coherent sentences.  --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *The population of Japan(more than 1200 million) is more than twice as much as that of south Korea(less than 500 million). Besides, the population of all other people who know it as "Liancourt Rocks" or something like that is more than 6 billion. People cannot say "Takeshima Islands"("Dokdo") belong to South Korea because South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution more than fifty years. Why South Korea has been rejecting international fair objective resolution that [[Japan] has proposed since 1954? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure everything is clear, Japan's population is not 1200 million (or anywhere close to that). As of 2005, the estimated population of Japan is 128,085,000 (or about 128 million)ref. The population of South Korea is 47,817,000 (or about 48 million)ref. If you add in North Korea's population (about 23 million)ref, the total population of the Korean Peninsula is about 71 million. However, this discussion has nothing to do with the respective populations of the countries involved. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why do Koreans use Wikipedia as if it were only Koreans' own? --⇒Shougiku Wine00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality over quantity Shougi Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep quiet, Shogiku Wine, if you would like to be a patriot / nationalist. Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (I mean here English-speaking readers/editors who are free from Korean POV). That cannot resolve the situation. --Isorhiza 08:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would his comments be then? Resolving this situation would be to ignore him. And I'm not a nationalist. Shougoki Wine's comments just destroyed the relationship between the Dokdo and Takeshima side completely. Good friend100 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to write to ⇒Shougiku Wine, not to you. You should rather consider replying to the question about the maps which you showed. That island cannot be Dokto. --Isorhiza 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't write to Shougi. Why do you write, "Your comments make enemies of non-korean editors (Japanese)" to Goodfriend who is not Japanese? Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess I can say that that island cannot be Takeshima also. Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Fascism? part3 

message: Then why would the Japanese government and people suddenly claim Dokdo a couple years ago? Its suspicious, and thats like South Korea claiming Tsushima suddenly. Oyo321 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "suddenly ... a couple (of) years ago". If we feel "suddenly", it just mean "we did not know". "(Note 2: In September 1954 Japan proposed to the Republic of Korea that the issue should be submitted to the International Court of Justice," according to The Issue of Takeshima (MOFA Japan, 2004). --Isorhiza 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is an obviously vandalism(childish, talk page, personal-attack vandalisms). Stop it.  --Questionfromjapan 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty lame comments. Even if your comments are true, it is impolite to write them in Wikipedia. What a remeniscence of the vandalism before! Good friend100 21:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If Takeshima was Takehima....

message: Whats wrong with shougi? Oyo321 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the word "vandalism" on my comments is your problem too, Forestfarmer. You simply claim I am vandalizing the page. How am I? Am I writing down bad comments? You need to stop accusing people of things. Good friend100 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoa whoa whoa okay... somebody needs to relax...

message: I think that the fact that airspace is also a valuable asset for the military should be included in the section about ecomony.--KiteString 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What economic benefit does South Korea gain by having airspace over the islets?  After all, it's only something like 25 nautical miles from any edge of the islets, which is pretty easy to fly around, no matter what kind of aircraft you're in.  It might have some (very limited) strategic importance, but the economic advantage of controlling the airspace is virtually nil.  --Zonath 08:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article says that Korea can track naval activities of Japan and Russia. Good friend100 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that's a strategic advantage, not an economic one.  I think that the economy section is pretty well complete as it is -- there is little or no economic activity on the islets themselves, although the waters around them contain fish and (poossibly) natural gas.  Certainly, strategic advantages might eventually translate into economic ones, even when they're so miniscule, but if that's what's happening here, it should be easy to find some mention of it somewhere else.  --Zonath 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really.  All islands generate territorial waters and airspace, but the existance of such isn't really that notable, unless there's something else that's actually signifigant about it.   At any rate, the small spot of territorial airspace doesn't provide any tabgible economic benefit to South Korea or the inhabitants of the islets themselves whatsoever, making mention of it an ill fit in a section that focuses on the economy of the islets.  Perhaps someone can show some strategic importance to South Korea having a 25nm-radius dot of territorial airspace in the middle of the Sea of Japan, but given that nobody has put forth any use of the airspace for economic activity, it really doesn't fit in the economy section.  --Zonath 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no economic benefit, then how come most of the articles I read say that Japan is seeking Dokdo for "economical reasons"? I think that the waters around Dokdo is very economical. Both S. Korea and Japan rely a lot to the sea for food and fishing is an important industry. Good friend100 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that there is no economic benefit to having the islets, I'm just saying that the 25nm zone of airspace around the islets doesn't confer any special economic benefits upon South Korea.  Yes, people fish in the waters around the islets.  Yes, posession of the islets does give South Korea a small extension of its EEZ in the Sea of Japan.  Yes, there are possibly some sort of natural gas deposits around the islets.  These are all economic activities/benefits, and are stated as such in the article.  However, the airspace around the islets isn't being exploited for any economic purpose, as far as I know, and so it isn't particularly notable .  --Zonath 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't get a strip of connecting air space.  Several countries have islands halfway around the globe from one another--they don't get a little strip of personal air space all the way around.  Even if they did, it wouldn't give much economic benefit.  If I misunderstand what you're asking, please clarify. LactoseTI 05:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Although the disposition of Dokdo could potentially have a fairly large effect upon the distribution of EEZs for the region (although it doesn't now, since South Korea doesn't count it when measuring its EEZ), territorial airspace only overlies territorial waters, which more or less extend 25nm out from shore, and doesn't stretch between islands and mainland.  --Zonath 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really nothing to be sorry for.  I don't think anyone here is innocent of making an assumption every now and then.  --ZonathYak 09:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More about economy

message: Whoa, I just noticed the article was unlocked and I can see that there were changes already; Isn't this a bit dangerous?71.234.20.64 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlocking

message: I disagree with the removal of the sentence noting that Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo in fair weather.  The edit summary called this "not notable."  It's true that seeing one island from another doesn't convery ownership or sovereignty, but that doesn't make the fact non-notable.  The article should not be a simple inventory of arguments for Korean or Japanese ownership.  There's an observation site on a cliff on the coast of Ulleungdo specifically for viewing Dokdo, so this is at least notable as an element of Dokdo-related tourism.  As an argument for Korean ownership, my recollection is that this is mainly intended to counter the claim sometimes made by the Japanese side that Dokdo wasn't known to Koreans until modernity. --Reuben 07:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The fact that Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo is easily verifiable (a simple mathematical equation shows this is at least possible) as well as signifigant to at least one or two arguments on either side.  --ZonathYak 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hadn't heard the argument that Koreans didn't know about it until recently; most arguments I've heard usually were based on the fact that "ancient history" doesn't matter.  (And I was thinking that although I can see a bucketload of Canadian isles from the US, it doesn't matter a whit.) If you feel it's important, by all means put that one back.  I didn't intend to "slight" anyone--instead I was trying to nibble down the length a bit, since the article is on the long side.  LactoseTI 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I squeezed it back in without really making the length significant.  If it's not there already, someone should add at least a note on the Ulleungdo page, too. LactoseTI 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeing from Ulleungdo 

message: It looks like there is systematic analysis about editors in this article going on in this 2ch website. They try to gather people who are able to write in English to counter attack what's been done by allegedly Korean editors they detect here. Just amazing... Ginnre 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty amazing.  Especially inasmuch as they think than anyone who disagrees with their POV must be Korean (I'm not, just in case anyone was wondering.)  I feel sort of... special for being singled out like this.  Guess I must be doing something right.  --ZonathYak 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm accusing the "Korean editors" of what? Disagreeing with you or trying to keep an inappropiate title of "Dokdo"? Good friend100 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder to 222.233.205.83: try to keep your edits constructive.  This talk page is already filled with way too much political debate. —LactoseTIT 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless they had their Wikipedia names there and were conspiring to break policies, I don't see the relevance.  There are many possible reasons for the many sock puppets on both sides that have shown up here. Komdori 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic analysis about some editors in 2ch.net. Just amazing. 

message: Reading through this article it is clear that people don't understand Wikipedia naming policy and its relationship with NPOV. Just to make this clear. A place name is not connected with which country has the 'better claim' or whether in a dispute like this who controls the island, or whether the name might not seem NPOV to either party. The only thing that counts is how English speakers refer to the name. This is why the Sea of Japan is the correct name for the Wikipedia article. It is NPOV for Wikipedia to call that sea the Sea of Japan, because that is what English speakers do call that body of water. That's all that matters. This seems to be the case with Senkaku Islands (English speakers seem to use that name much more commonly). Quoting Wikipedia itself:
Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?
So the only thing that should be discussed is which name is used the most by English speakers. If it's a case of English speakers essentially never using it then we need to see what English sources such as news, geography references use. (A polite suggestion: learn how to use Google before posting stats here). Macgruder 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not all articles in Wikipedia are named by "how English speakers refer to it." A lot of articles are not American-based articles and are not named in and English word. Same goes for Dokdo. You might know that not many people know about the conflict between Korea and Japan, and escpecially around Dokdo. 
Dokdo is the right namw for the Rocks. There is no other eligible name, save Japanese "Takeshima" if anyone believes that Dokdo is truly Japanese territory... Oyo321 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you read what Macgruder wrote just above this comment?  Wikipedia policy is that they should be named with the name English speakers use, regardless of if they are "American-based" or not.  What's more, subjective criteria (such as you suggest) should not be used. —LactoseTIT 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe you are so strong, the article would have been moved a long time ago. Good friend100 00:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This situation calls for much discussion to determine the best name--The article is changing slowly.  If their only exposure is recent news, I agree that it is very unlikely for English speakers to know one term without the other.  I'm sure we can come up with a better title and wording which will match such intuitions.  I suppose we might be better off being "more bold" and trying some names right away, but I feel such actions should be tempered, considering the sheer amount of emotional zeal some editors (on both sides) seem to have.  If we're careful, I think as a whole we can manage to find the best solution.  —LactoseTIT 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LactoseTI & Komdori, you are both ridiculous and contradictory. I seriously doubt Komdori's true identity - I actually think s/he was mobilized by Japanese Wikipedians from one of the forums. And LactoseTI, what you argue are contradictory to your statements back in Seven Year War article. (Wikimachine 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What about a title such as "Dokdo/Takeshima", and in the opening paragraph "Dokdo or Takeshima"? Is there an opening for that in Wikipedia naming policy? Would it even be possible, considering the slash? Rōnin 14:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding Wikipedia naming policy