Misplaced Pages

Clownface:What this shows in fact is before 1880, the Japanese called Ulleungdo Takeshima.

What is the reason to call Ulleungdo Matsushima? Is there a reason that is not the change in the island name? Please present the reason and evidence.

Clownface:However, the identity of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) never changes.

This is internal material of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1878. Do not you see this? It is evidence of change. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time is admitted to have changed. Record of Japan at that time and your political presumption without specific evidence. Well, which can be adopted as evidence?　Even if you use dirty words, it doesn't become help of the persuasiveness of your insistence. Thank you.--Opp2 13:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the document you cite above is one of the entries into Japan's investigation of Takeshima, (the name of the report itself is proof of what Japanese most frequently called Ulleungdo in 1878) It is one opinion of many regarding the mapping confusion of the day.

Japan conducted an investigation into Takeshima to find out if any other islands existed in the East Sea because of increasing development proposals by Japanese who were infringing on Ulleungdo Island. This was also prompted by the European maps which showed three islands in the East Sea.

When we view maps or read documents from the 19th Century we must do so on a case by case basis. Let me give you an example. This 1870 document declares both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Chosun since the island was "ceded" during the Anyongbok Incident of 1696. Because of this historical reference Takeshima is Ulleungdo, Matsushima cannot be Ulleungdo here because it is described as a neighbour island of Ulleungdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html

There are no maps of this era that show Takeshima as Ulleungdo and include Liancourt Rocks, thus your theory does not apply. Maps with three islands show Ulleungdo as Matsushima.

The other document that kills Japan's claim to Dokdo is the 1877 Inquiry into Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and "the other island" This too shows that Japan didn't consider any islands outside of the Okinoshimas as part of Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html

The attached map to this document clearly shows Ulleungdo in correct form, and has Matsushima (Dokdo) drawn as two islands.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-1.jpg

Here is a closeup.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-2.jpg

From these documents Japan clearly excluded both Ulleungdo and Matsushima (Dokdo) from her territory. To clear up any remaining doubt about the possibilty of any other islands in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) Japan conducted another survey in 1880 by the ship Amagi.

The bottom line is this Opp. When Japan cleared up what few doubts remained by those less informed like Watanabe Kuoki all development proposals for the area were refused.

What's even more important Opp is all Japanese maps be it national or prefecture did not show Takeshima, Matsushima, or Liancourt Rocks as part of either Shimane Prefecture or Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html

Oki Island was declared the boundary of Japan in 1667 and it remained such until greedy Japanese expansionist annexed the island in 1905. Clownface 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Important Data for Misplaced Pages. Japan's military involvement on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)

Here are some maps showing Japan's military involvement on the Korean peninsula and it shows how Dokdo was integrated into Japan's warplan during the Russo~Japanese War.

These maps were obtained from Japan Center for Asian Historical Archives and are public property.

This 1905 Japanese Navy map shows the Korean peninsula and Liandong Peninsula notice how Dokdo is integrated into Japan's military telegraph systems.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg

This 1905 Japanese military map shows Korea's Ulleungdo Island. You can see the Japanese Navy watchtower locations and the location of military telegraph wires that were linked to Dokdo to the East and Jukpyeon~Ulsan on Korea.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire3.jpg

This map was the defence plan for Japan dated January 5th 1905 this is before Japan annexed Dokdo. Notice how Liancourt Rocks and vicinity was zoned and designated to a specific naval regimental zone.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/warzonemap2.jpg

These are Japanese Navy maps of Dokdo. The first was a map of Dokdo drawn by the Niitaka in September of 1904. He declared the island was suitable for building (military) structures.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/niitakadoc3.jpg

These are the orders given to the warship Tsushima on November 13th 1904 to survey Liancourt Rocks for installation of underwater telegraph (not wireless) lines. The Tsushima was also ordered to finish watchtower work on Ulleungdo, Jukpyeong and Ulsan Korea.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/tsushimadoc6.jpg

Here is a Japanese naval survey map of Liancourt Rocks. These were prior to the annexation of Dokdo. You can see it shows the range of visiblity from given points on the islands. This was because the Japanese Navy was planning watchtower installation here.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map.jpg

These are Japanese naval survey maps of Dokdo done by the Japanese Imperial warship Hashidate they were taken immediately after the Japanese defeated the Russians in the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905. They show the best location for observation posts and underwater telegraph lines.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navymap3.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navymap2.jpg

Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of the colonization of Korea and their militaristic ambitions on the Korean peninsula and other parts of Asia such as Port Arthur (now Lushun and Dalian).

I hope this information help clear up why Japan annexed Dokdo when they did.Clownface 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Luckily none of this is at all relevant. Misplaced Pages is not an international court of law. We are here to document a well-sourced and NPOV history of Liancourt, not support your nationalistic speculations. 24.91.16.229 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

His insistence is not based on International Law. Because construction and the maintenance of military facilities without a protest by another countries are admited as evidences of peaceful effective control in the International law. I think he want to prove Japanese peaceful effective control.--Opp2 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster above. If "we" are here to discuss the history of Liancourt why don't you contribute something to this thread? And are you to decide what is relevant?

My nationalist speculations?? What is that supposed to mean? I'm neither Japanese nor Korean. Take the time to read what I've posted instead of blathering away.

My first point was the historical reference Misplaced Pages has with regard to Saito Hosen's 1667 report of Oki is an incorrect translation. I gave a translation, various citations from authors on the subject and even an original image of the document itself. Is that "NPOV" for you?

The other images are original maps and documents from the 19th Century that shows Japan did not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo within her territory. These are very useful data for Misplaced Pages as these images are as "NPOV" as you can get and again relevant to the history of Liancourt Rocks.

Misplaced Pages's historical information on Liancourt Rocks has some serious errors and is missing some critical data. They should correct these errors if they want to be considered credible. The historical inaccuracies here go beyond either J or K POV.

Opp are still trying to pretend you're an international hotshot lawyer again? That's funny!!Clownface 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• My first point was the historical reference Misplaced Pages has with regard to Saito Hosen's 1667 report of Oki is an incorrect translation.

Anyone didnnot interpret like you. Who is interpreting 此州 as "two islands"?

• Opp are still trying to pretend you're an international hotshot lawyer again?

Sorry. It is writing in the judicial precedent. It differs from your original rule.

Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards(P.C.A., 1998-1999)
In order to examine the performance of jurisdictional acts on the Islands, the Tribunal must consider evidence of activities on the land territory of the Islands as well as acts in the water surrounding the Islands. This evidence includes: landing parties on the Islands; the establishment of military posts on the Islands; the construction and maintenance of facilities on the Islands; the licensing of activities on the land of the Islands; the exercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of happenings on the Islands; the construction or maintenance of lighthouses; the granting of oil concessions; and limited life and settlement on the Islands.

Thank you.--Opp2 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you've missed the point again. The issue is not whether or not Japan expressed sovereignty over Takeshima. The issue is whether Japan's basis for establishing effective control over Dokdo was legal within the framework of international law AND the terms of surrender Japan agreed to after WWII. (ie Cairo Convention and Potsdam Declaration)

Please before you quote law Opp, I would like to know some of your legal credentials. Can you please tell us which law school you went to? I'd really like to know. How can I trust your legal information if you don't tell us where you studied? Please tell us...

Do you think anyone will support Japan's claim to Takeshima when they realize their one and only claim to the island was a military annexation at the height of the largest war to the day? I seriously doubt even if Japan could prove it was legal within the framework of 19th Century law they could muster any support at all. (except for a few wacky Japanese right wing extremists)

Anyway, I've almost finished Part II of Japan's Takeshima X Files series. The rest of the world can see the truth behind Japan's claim to Takeshima.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Opp, For the fourth time now. Saito Hosen did not say "Matsushima marks the Northwest boundary of Japan as Misplaced Pages states. He said "this "州" or province as you know.Clownface 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is whether Japan's basis for establishing effective control over Dokdo was legal within the framework of international law

Yes, of course legal. I have showed the judicial precedent without bias. Can you see it?

• I would like to know some of your legal credentials.

“Eritrea – Yemen” was written by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Sorry, I did not write it.

• Anyway, I've almost finished Part II of Japan's Takeshima X Files series.

Thank you for proving the Japanese effective control. However, please don’t forget the license of the sea dog catching on the Liancourt Rocks and the registration to the cadastre of Shimane prefecture because these are admitted as evidences of effective control in the international law too. --Opp2 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp I'm still waiting to hear your credentials in the field of law.... Do you really think anybody cares about the legal theories of someone who has no formal education in this area?

As I've pointed out. Whether or not Japan has a legal case is not up to you or me. However, now that I'm showing that Japan's claim to Dokdo is based on a military appropriation and has no historical foundation who really cares about Japan's claim anyway. This is clearly why no other nations support Japan's claim Opp..Clownface 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• However, now that I'm showing that Japan's claim to Dokdo is based on a military appropriation

Please don’t forget the license of the sea dog catching on the Liancourt Rocks and the registration to the cadastre of Shimane prefecture because these are admitted as evidences of effective control in the international law too.

• This is clearly why no other nations support Japan's claim

??? Japan doesn't need your support which is based on your original rule because Internatinal law support Japanese tite. Thank you.--Opp2 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Credentials Opp. I'm still waiting. Clownface 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
When you prove the following, I may think.

• Your degree concerning history science.
• Your degree concerning Japanese language.
• Your degree concerning Chinese classics.
• An evidence which proves that you are a delegation of World nations

Tank you. --Opp2 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the difference is I don't pretend to be any of the above you list. The translations on my website were sourced from either educated professionals I've paid or cited publications. Unlike you, I don't launch personal attacks on those who are more qualified than I.

So it seems you are not a lawyer. Finally you admit that. Thus your legal theories are little more than opinions of a layman. With that in mind I cant' believe you have the brass balls to launch a personal attack on an a REAL Law Professor (Myung-Ki Kim) such as you do here.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/

Go to school, get a law degree and then we will listen to your definitions of law, "professor" Opp.Clownface 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Please prove your interpretation of historical material(Japanese and Chinese classics) to be correct. For instance, there is no scholar who is insisting like you about Saito's book. Thank you.--Opp2 14:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the only insistence I've consistently made on this thread is to clarify that Saito Hosen did not say. "Thus, Matsushima is the northwest bounday of Japan" as Wiki says on their Liancourts Page. He said this "州" is the boundary. This is fact, not subject to interpretation at all.

There are many professors who agree with me that Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki declared Oki Island as the Northwest boundary of Japan. If you want citations just ask. Clownface 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is interpreting 此州 as "two islands"?　This is your logic for negation of the interraption of 此州 as "Matsuhima". Please prove your interpretation of historical material(Japanese and Chinese classics) to be correct.----Opp2 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, I wonder, if you are neither Japanese nor Korean as you say, why you are claiming the ability to read medieval Japanese and interpret a text better than accomplished scholars. Speaking as a second-year Japanese student, the way you divide up kanji is a little ridiculous. 24.91.16.229 04:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster above, I'm not claiming to be an expert on medieval text. I'm simply making know the incorrect translation on the wikipedia page above. The mistakes I'm pionting out can be verified by the citations above. Here are the Japanese authors who support this fact. I can give you more citations from other authors if you wish.

1. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori.hwp

2. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura

Again, this interpretation is not mine but accepted by many Koreans and Japanese alike.

Again I reiterate for you Opp.

The last line of Saito Hosen's text says. Thus this "州" marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.

It does not say "Thus, Matsushima marks the northwest boundary of Japan.." as Misplaced Pages says. Here is the original document itself.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito2.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito1.jpg

Please show me where it says "Thus, Matsushima marks the Northwest boundary of Japan" Misplaced Pages's translation is dead wrong. 124.80.117.107 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:Thus this "州" marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.

Yes. Therefor some scholers say this "州" is Oki state and some scholers say this "州" is a island(Takeshima:Ulleunddo). No one say that this "州" is two islands(Matsuhima and Takeshima) like you.

• Clownface:Please tell me how two islands a full days travel and 90 kms apart from each other in a straight line away can become a boundary.

This your rebuttal is inconsequence. And, how do you want to correct?--Opp2 11:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
INTEPRETATION ABOUT SAITO'S BOOK IS HERE.

• Clownface:I'm wondering Why you have some kind of problem understanding what I'm saying?

It is simple. Your insistant is based on your original rule.

• Clownface:Saito Hosen says this "州" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. It does not say "Matsushima" marks the boundary of Japan.

Therefore, how do you want to retouch?　Do you want to describe both theories? Do you write that the interpretation that Takeshima(Ulleung-do) is a Korean territory is impossible too? --Opp2 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:I cant' believe you have the brass balls to launch a personal attack on an a REAL Law Professor (Myung-Ki Kim) such as you do here.

You need not believe me. You only have to believe the original source which was quoted by this dipsy scholer.
EXAMPLE OF A IMPROPER QUOTATION BY THIS DIPSY KOREAN SCHOLER

Original text of "A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by William E. Hall"

The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded. Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.

France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.

The dipsy scholer's quotation about Hall p321

As Westlake, William E. Hall also argues that “the Act of Berlin” is not only valid for the contracting parties, but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says :

an agreement, made between all the state which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule

Though the meaning changes completely, why do the dipsy scholer omit the word of "Nevertheless" ? Did the dipsy scholer make a mistake in the quotation though the explanation by the case was attached? Hall deny the notification as a view of a principle and obligation. Prof. Daijyudo also is pointing out this dipsy scholer's improper quotation. --Opp2 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what was the dispute???

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)lunaholikLunaholik 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Japan can renounce Japanese territory. The United States, Allies, and South Korea cannot acquisition Japanese territory without the consent of Japan.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY
It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

"JApan had to give back" is not evidences but Korean wish and presumption. Korean wish is not important. It is important whether Japan renounced Takeshima. The insistence of Japan is that Japan didn't renounce her title of Takeshima after the surrender.--Opp2 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, seriously. I'm wondering Why you have some kind of problem understanding what I'm saying? Are you Ok?

Misplaced Pages's translation is wrong. Saito Hosen says this "州" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. It does not say "Matsushima" marks the boundary of Japan.

When you finally understand the simple sentence I've repeated six times, maybe we can talk law.

The Takeshima X-files page 2 is done now. I hope you enjoy it!!

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Please enjoy and learn about the shameful truth of Japan's military annexation of Dokdo. Korea will never allow this to happen again OppClownface 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts which prove japanese effective control. But even it is unrelated this time. Present subject is whether Japan renounced Takeshima after the surrender. I think you canot understand the subject. You only play havoc with this subsection. If you want to talk about your original interpretation of Saito's book, please talk above your subsection.--Opp2 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

moved from article

The sentence

'Japanese scholars interpret the latter part as "come into view " 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)

I see. I apologize for my incursion. Odst 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

administration.

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)

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)

However, It must be acknowledged that the current administration powers are held by The South Korean Government, whether or not the Liancourt rocks are rightfully theirs. both South Korea and Japan claim the Liancourt rocks as their territory, But South Korea controls it, at least for now, and maybe forever. A reader new to the subject might find that at first, very confusing. Odst 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Also, My insistence was not KPOV. I would like to consider myself neutral. Odst 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Opp. Japan signed treaties that clearly excluded Dokdo from Japan's territory. NO further directives were issued on the status of Dokdo by the allies and the SF Peace Treaty was concluded at this state. America and the allies were legally empowered to act as Japan's agent in the due process of defining the nation of Japan's international boundaries and included minor islands.

Japan could not and can never exercise sovereignty again because they are not legally empowered to. They signed off these right to exercise sovereignty under the terms of surrender in 1945. Japan misinterprets the omission of Dokdo in the SF Peace Treaty to mean Japan is again granted sovereignty. This is false because there are many other minor islands Japan exercised authority over during the occupation that were released from Japan's control after the liberation of Korea. Without exercising any soveignty comes the loss of "effective control" without effective control or any sovereignty how Japan continue to claim title?

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ww2.html

Opp I'm glad you finally acknowledge that Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an act of military aggression. Then we can see Japan's occupation was illegal under the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. Paragraph 2 of the Cairo Convention and Artilce 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. "Japan must be expelled from all territories taken by violence or greed.." Is a quote from the Cairo Convention and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration.

So you see Opp, Japanese military aggression does negate Japan's title to Dokdo as well.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Yes Opp, Japan's military activities are evidence of effective control. The trouble is these activities were firstly NOT part of a natural "peaceful" process that the ICJ demands territorial acquisitions be. Second they were illegal under peace agreements Japan was legally obligated to be expelled from under stipulations of both the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration.

Opp, the colonial era is over and with it died Japan's miltiary land grabs she gained during this time. You must accept this and move on. It is not a bad thing for Korea to have Dokdo. Korea is the most proximal land that has verifiably lived within visual distance of Dokdo 1000 years (512 AD) before the first Japanese accidentally stumbled upon Ulleungdo in 1618.124.80.112.73 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Stop yerself Opp!!

Read what I've written again. The fact is Japan has no right to attempt to exercise administration over Dokdo at all Opp. Japan's right to sovereignty were eliminated when she signed peace treaties that clearly excluded Dokdo from the definition of what constituted the nation of Japan.

Without the legal consent of the allied nations (who were acting as legal agents of the nation of Japan's international affairs) Japan cannot claim title or exercise jurisdiction over Dokdo. Korea as a sovereign nation and also not signatory to the SF Peace Treaty or Japan's terms of surrender thus not subject to these binding agreements at all Opp.

In addition the administration of territory must be continuous which Japan has failed to do for well over 50 years now.

Under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that Japan signed any disputes she has with the interpretation of this treaty can be brought before the ICJ by Japan.Clownface 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

military acts

• Opp I'm glad you finally acknowledge that Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an act of military aggression.

International Law admits maintenance of military posts without protest by another countries as the peaceful effective control.

Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards(P.C.A., 1998-1999) In order to examine the performance of jurisdictional acts on the Islands, the Tribunal must consider evidence of activities on the land territory of the Islands as well as acts in the water surrounding the Islands. This evidence includes: landing parties on the Islands; the establishment of military posts on the Islands; the construction and maintenance of facilities on the Islands; the licensing of activities on the land of the Islands; the exercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of happenings on the Islands; the construction or maintenance of lighthouses; the granting of oil concessions; and limited life and settlement on the Islands.

In this judicial precedent, this standard is applied to the examination in the latter half of the 20th century. Is it in invalidity when? Please present not your wish but an objective judicial precedent. In addition, Japan have the evidence of the sea lion hunting based on the license and landing by the party of Shimane prefecture. Thank you.--Opp2 11:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp what you have is another cut-and-paste unrelated snippet of rubbish from your tired bag of tricks. The information you have is just proof of jurisdiction what is at issue here something different.

You are confused again. We are not talking about acts that are displays of juridiction we are talking about legal basis for territorial land claim.

Land annexations initiated to assert military during a war (Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905) control constitute acts of aggression. These are not a legal basis for title under both Max Hubers definition of what constitutes legal effective control (this must be both a peaceful and natural process) or by Japan's terms of surrender in WWII ie Cairo Convention or Potsdam Declaration. (violence or greed)

If you think Japan is going to claim Dokdo on the basis her military marched in and seized the island in 1905 you got another thing coming Opp. If Japan makes such brash claims as you do, it is a major foreign affairs blunder on her behalf and she will fail.Clownface 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:We are not talking about acts that are displays of juridiction we are talking about legal basis for territorial land claim.

"Displays of juridiction" is most important for the legal territorial claim(title). Have you and a dipsy Korean scholer who cannot even the accurate quotation of the book decided the rule of the world?

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)
It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty

without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

PALMAS(Max Hubers)

• The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.
  
• If, however, no conventional line of sufficient topographical precision exists or if there are gaps in the frontiers otherwise established, or if a conventional line leaves room for doubt, or if, as e.g. in the case of an island situated in the high seas, the question arises whether a title is valid erga omnes, the actual continuous and peaceful display of state functions is in case of dispute the sound and natural criterium of territorial sovereignty.
• an inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, difinitive title put forward by another State.

• Prof. Mianagawa

What South Korea had to prove was to have acquired stronger title before the Shimane Prefecture incorporation. That is, Korea is necessary to prove that Korean title had substituted to the title by the effective occupation before it was incorporated by Shimane. However, the effective control by Korea has not been proven at all. The discussion such as not being possible to protest is meaningless if Korea cannot prove this.

• Prof. Daijyudo

It is meaningless even if it is assumed that Korea was not able to protest after February, 1905. Because Korea did not do though it was able to control effectively before 1904. They did not manage the sea lions hanting.

• Prof. Serita

Japan made the sea lion hanting a licence system. (SYC.) Peaceful effective control of Japan continued like this till WW2.

The judicial precedent that supports these insistences has been presented. And, does the judicial precedent that supports the insistence of a dipsy Korean scholer who cannot even the accurate quotation of the book?

• Clownface:Max Hubers definition of what constitutes legal effective control (this must be both a peaceful and natural process)

Yes. Peaceful is decided whether another countries expressed the protest or not.

PALMAS(Max Hubers)
Since the moment when the Spaniards, in withdrawing from the Moluccas in 1666, made express reservations as to the maintenance of their sovereign rights, up to the contestation made by the United States in 1906, no contestation or other action whatever or protest against the exercise of territorial rights by the Netherlands over the Talautse (Sangi) Isles and their dependencies (Miangas included) has been recorded. The peaceful character of the display of Netherlands sovereignty for the entire period to which the evidence concerning acts of display relates (1700–1906) must be admitted.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)
The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

And, the judicial precedent that admits the military posts has been presented. Thank you.--Opp2 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice cut and paste job. But none of your precedents apply. Do your "dipsy" professors supercede Korea's? For a person with zero law credentials you are a very ignorant person Opp you should be ashamed of insulting a legal professor. do you think that would be acceptable in a court of law "professor Opp"?

Even if you ignore the realities that, it is useless. Myung-Ki Kim cannot do even an accurate quotation. His misquotation has pointed out by Prof. Daijyudo. Refer to the following for a concrete case of Myung-Ki Kim's dipsy quotation.

EXAMPLE OF A IMPROPER QUOTATION BY THIS DIPSY KOREAN SCHOLER

Original text of "A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by William E. Hall"

The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded. Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.

France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.

The dipsy scholer's(Myung-Ki Kim) quotation about Hall

As Westlake, William E. Hall also argues that “the Act of Berlin” is not only valid for the contracting parties, but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says :

an agreement, made between all the state which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule

Is this foolishness who can not even an accurate copy of the text a scholar?--Opp2 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Display of jurisdiction are just proof of jurisiction Opp, they are not a legal basis for territorial land claim.

Basis for land claim are for example: Treaty Law, Geography, Economy, Culture, Effective Control, History, Uti Possiditus (Colonial pre-exisiting boundaries), Elitism, Ideology. Act of jurisdiction display are just proof, they don't legitimize it.

Your original rule is no use. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)

It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

By the way, even if Uti Possiditus is applied, it becomes a Japanese territory because Takeshima's administrative area was Japan(shimane) while annexing. The Chosun governor-general prefecture has never had jurisdiction over Takeshima .　Because Japan is not a colony, Uti Possiditus cannot be applied. --Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a bizarre theory Opp, you say the fact Japan whopped up military structures during a war means Japan owns Dokdo. This is wrong on so many points.

Your original rule is no use. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan claimed Dokdo on 2 points in 1905. First she said Dokdo was an inherent part of hers from ancient times and at the same time she stated it was terra nullius "no man's land. This is comical because even as wikipedia pionts out, how can a territory be no man's land and an inherent part of your territory from ancient times Japan's MOFA no longer takes this stance because they know it is a sham. Now they are left with their dubious historical claims which can be disregarded as rubbish by reams of Japan's own maps and documents.

Japan has never say it was terra nullius. When did Japan say, "title by occupation of the terra nullius "? This Japanese contradiction story was created by a South Korean professor who was not able to do even an accurate quotation.--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike all of the precedents you cite, Japan was subject to the terms of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. These treaties specifically state that the Japan must be expelled from all territories siezed by greed or violence.

You see Opp, this is the reason I post links to the Takeshima X Files pages. This information destroys Japan's claim because they are proof of Japan's greed. Seizing territory during a war while fighting over the rights to colonize a nation is a classic example of "greed"

Please read Confidential Instruction #276 issued to the Japanese Warship Tsushima on November 13th, 1904. They are proof that first Japan's annexation of Dokdo was a military siezure and also that Japan's military activities on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) were totally inseparable to the militarization of the Korean peninsula.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

See Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards. I have already presented. This is the evidence of Japanese peaceful effective control because no countries did not pretest. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW Opp as I've told you many times Korea protested through what measures remained in tact in 1906. By the time Japan made known her annexation Korea's ability to file state-to-state protest was compromised because in August 1904 Japan dismantled Korea's foreign affairs office and appointed Durham White Stevens.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

The protest by Korea government did not express. And, the effective control by Japan is from 1905. Korea even did not notice the effective control by Japan.

• Prof. Mianagawa

What South Korea had to prove was to have acquired stronger title before the Shimane Prefecture incorporation. That is, Korea is necessary to prove that Korean title had substituted to the title by the effective occupation before it was incorporated by Shimane. However, the effective control by Korea has not been proven at all. The discussion such as not being possible to protest is meaningless if Korea cannot prove this. --Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very muchClownface 05:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The judicial precedent denies all your dream. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed? I think that you should talk about not your dream but the fact. Thank you.--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp Korea has to prove nothing, Korea has Dokdo remember? The year here is 2007 not 1905. Japan has to prove it has a valid claim NOT Korea.

Do it become invalid while fighting against another country(Rossiya)? Japan and Korea did not fight. Prease prove this your original strange rule. Japan did not acquire the title of Takeshima even by the conquest because Korea cannot not prove her title of Takeshima before 1905. Moreover the title by conquest is lawful at that time.

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)

It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

Korea doesn't have any evidence of her effective control. This is the reason that some South Korean scholars are aspire the evidence of the effective control by Korea before 1905. However, the evidence doesn't exist. Than you.--Opp2 05:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan lost the right to exercise authority over Dokdo upon the terms of surrender after 1945. Without the consent of the allies she can't exercise jurisdiction over Dokdo. Without exercising sovereignty or any jurisdiction comes acquiesence and thus loss of title. Dokdo was for all effective purposes "terra nullius" in 1945, meaning no nation had a minimum degree of soverignty over the island upon Japan losing effective control.

You have also totally avoided and thus failed to negate the legally binding effect of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Delcaration.

Proclamation Defining Terms For Japanese Surrender(Potsdam Declaration)

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.

When did the Allies do the decision about islans based on this Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration?

The final answer by US government about SF treaty(RUSK DOCUMENTS)

With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment.(SYC.)

As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, 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 Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

This prove that SF treaty did not include Takeshima in the renunciation territory of Japan.

John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference September 5, 1951

Some Allied Powers suggested that article 2 should not merely delimit Japanese sovereignty according to Potsdam, but specify precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories. This, admittedly, would have been neater. But it would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers. We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.

This prove that Allies had not decided the islands based on Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration before the SF treaty because Allies ware in the state of the internal trouble. When did the Allies country demand the renunciation of Takeshima to Japan based on the Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration? When did Japan agree to the renunciation of Takeshima based on the determination of Alies? Your drem didnot come true. Tank you.--Opp2 06:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way Opp, there are no judicial precedents that have within them all the elements that the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute has. That is why Korea will never risk taking this to the ICJ. Why should Korea be a test case for ICJ precedents involving colonial expansionism, Post WWII Treaty effects, inchohate titles?

The judicial precedent denies all your dream. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed? I think that you should talk about not your dream but the fact. Thank you.....

I don't even understand that quote...

Korea has Dokdo Opp, I hate to tell you this but it is you that is dreaming.....Clownface 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:here are no judicial precedents that have within them all the elements that the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute has.

This is wrong. There is no advantageous judicial precedent and international law for South Korea. Therefore, South Korea should deny the judicial precedent and the scholar of International Law without bias and make a new rule like you and the dipsy scholer(Myung-Ki Kim). However, the "New rule" is groundless because the new rule was made by the Korea for the Korea for the Korea. South Korea is not a lawmaking organ of International Law. Thank you.--Opp2 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, as I've said there is no prececent with the same traits of the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. There are so many elements to this dispute that the precedents you cite don't have within them.

Lawyers cite past cases and judges decide whether or not they are applicable NOT you "Judge" Opp. All of these so-called "applicable precedents" you cut and paste ad nauseum are simply some of many hypothetical legal scenarios of that could happen if this were to go to the ICJ and nothing more. Again, under the terms of surrender Japan is legally obligated to stop exercising sovereignty over Dokdo and cannot without consent of the allies. From there the SF Peace Treaty was concluded and Japan signed it. No minimum degree of sovereignty, no effective control, no title.

Thank you very, very much!!Clownface 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:Lawyers cite past cases and judges decide whether or not they are applicable NOT you "Judge" Opp.

Your insistence has already been denied by the judicial precedent. In addition, your original rurle does not have grounds. Example

• Clownface:Basis for land claim are for example: Treaty Law, Geography, Economy, Culture, Effective Control, History, Uti Possiditus (Colonial pre-exisiting boundaries), Elitism, Ideology.

Does the culture become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the geography become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the history become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the elitism become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the ideorogy become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Is Uti Possiditus applied to the suzerain? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?

It's very funny. Thank you.--Opp2 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, here's an artcle from Duke Law University that agrees with what I've said. It is one of many respected law schools you haven't attended.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?53+Duke+L.+J.+1779

Go to school and get a degree before talking law Opp. It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.Clownface 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read "CONCLUSION"?

CONCLUSION

Although territorial disputants perennially make arguments based on all these justifications, only three of these justifications have operated consistently as the ICJ's decision rule: treaty law, uti possidetis, and effective control.

And, the Korea empire acquired title based on which rule. It was ceded by the treaty from Japan at the beginning of 20th century? Did the Korea empire become independent from Japan at the beginning of 20th century? Did Korea empire control Takeshima effectively control? Please show me the evidences which based on these three justifications. If you can not, the effective control of Japan in 1905 cannot be assumed to be an invasion because Korea empire did not have any title and right. Thank you. --Opp2 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you say uti possidetis Opp? That's were territorial boundaries are redrawn to pre-colonial boundaries with the formation of a new state. Dokdo is a good of example of this. When the Republic of Korea was formed Dokdo was part of this new state and the world recognized this without objection. That is just one of many scenarios that could play out in the Dokdo Takeshima dispute in favour of Korea.

I am confirming about the Korea empire and the beginning of 20th century to you. I naver here you about Republic of Korea. Do not change the subject. If you can not show me the evidences which based on these three justifications, the effective control of Japan in 1905 cannot be assumed to be an invasion because Korea empire did not have any title and right.　And if you cannot, it become that Takeshima was not included in the invasion region of the Cairo Declaration. Your dream didnot come true. Thank you.--Opp2 15:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Effective control is another basis for Korea's claim as nobody was exercising a minimum degree of sovereignty over Dokdo when Korea took control over the island and to this day has exercised effective control for longer than Japan now.

Your original rule. --Opp2 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says all of the past examples are basis for land title. You base all of your theories only on possibly applicable precedents and not on all possible basis for land claims. As I've mentioned a few times the cases you cite do not include some the elements of the Dokdo dispute which render your examples of questionable relevence.

It is said average lawyers cite precedents and great lawyers make precedents.

I've told you several times now Opp but you ignore the fact. Japan can't claim Dokdo because she signed treaties that explicitly forbid her from exercising any sovereignty over the island. Give it up.220.90.84.168 220.90.84.168 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

Please show me the treaty that Allies determined the minor island based on Potsdam Declaration, the determine the Takeshima as the minor islands and the treaty which shows Japan agreed the Allie's determination. Though Dallas's speach,Rusk Documents and SCAPIN677 showed that the determination of the Allies did not exist till SF treaty. Thank you.--Opp2 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you are not following me. Uti posseditus doesn't need to define the Empire of Korea to legally strip Japan of Dokdo. Uti Posseditus defines Japan's boundary NOT Korea's irregarless of whether or not Dokdo was part of Korea in 1905. Japan's colonial invasion of her surrounding areas began in February 8th of 1904 when Japan declared war on Russian and landed her troop in Chemulpo (Incheon), marched into Seoul and forced Korea to allow Japan to militarily occupy the Korean peninsula. Thus Japan's territorial land acquisition of Dokdo is part of Japan's colonization of the region. Prior to this era Dokdo was not included as part of Japan.

Opp, the Potsdam Declaration doesn't make specific the which minor islands define Japan, but Scapin 677 does.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan(Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks( Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude(including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands including the Daito(Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands, and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

However, Article 6 of SCAPIN No.677 does not mean that the Allied Powers had not defined Japan's territory but that they had made no ultimate determination. While clearly defining the ownership of the minor islands, including Tokdo, the Allied Powers reserved the right to revise this definition should the need arise. Therefore, some islands were returned to Japan and Japan's residual sovereignty was recognized for some other islands, but no specific directive or memorandum was issued to retrocede Tokdo to Japan, nor a declaration made to recognize Japan's residual sovereignty over Tokdo. Tokdo was separated from Japan by SCAPIN No.677 and in this situation, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded. Japan cannot fill in the blanks with her own definition of the SF Peace Treaty

The Rusk papers were a confidential memorandum, and none of this correspondence resulted in America openly supporting Japan's claim to Dokdo. At any rate we should remember that America was just one of many allies involved in the process of defining Japan's territory. Other drafts of the SF Peace Treaty showed Dokdo was included as part of Korea. This process involved a lot of lobbying and legal wrangling. You can see other drafts showing Dokdo as part of Korea.

http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/SF.htm

However, the bottom line is America defined what minor islands were to be included as part of Japan in directive 3 of Scap 677 and never again modified this definition. Directive 5 seals the legally kills Japan's claim unless the allies made another decision which they did not. Japan is not legally empowered to reverse this decision. Not only that Opp, all powers of the allies were transferred to the Korean's upon the formation of the Republic of Korea's independence.

The allies excluded Takeshima from the definition of Japan and the SF Peace Treaty concluded in this state. This mess is essentially the fault of the allies found the issue to contentious to handle and simply decided not to mofidy the agreement when Japan contested Korea's seizure of Dokdo.Clownface 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Directive 5 seals the legally kills Japan's claim unless the allies made another decision which they did not. " This constitutes original research. Find the reputable English language scholar who has written this conclusion (if you cannot find an English language scholar then straight translate the Japanese/Korean scholar). Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to interpret legal issues. You report what reputable scholars have written. If there is a difference of opinion then you simply report that scholars disagree. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to take original documents and put your conclusions. Especially as so often on this page people are attempting to use these documents to prove their own point of view. Furthermore the links you provide or not reputable scholars and so are meaningless in the context of Misplaced Pages unless they are simply reproductions of historical material. Macgruder 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obey Alphabetial order

obey alphabetical order. dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". also, this island contolled by korea gov. japan is just "claim". some korean residence that island, but no japanese there. also, in japan, they can't go to dokdo by ship and airplane.(they need permit by korea gov.) but korean can.Bason1 10:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List names in the order, English, Japanese, Korean is alphabetical. --Kusunose 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

in englsih, dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". also, in korean language, 독도's "ㄷ"is ahead of "타케시마"'s "ㅌ".

according to englsih and korea alphabetical order, dokdo is ahead of takeshima.

also, this island contolled by korea gov. japan is just "claim".(actually NO relation with japan) some korean residence that island, but no japanese there. also, in japan, they can't go to dokdo by ship and airplane.(they need permit by korea gov.) but korean can.Bason1 13:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any general policy or convention to support the alphabetical order rule based on the name of the languages? It doesn't seem to be universally followed. Thanks. --Reuben 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) says "foreign language names ... should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", though it's for the lead or naming section and not for language infobox. --Kusunose 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It also gives precedence to official local names, which allows some subjective judgement. --Reuben 08:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I though it was called Tok Islets as the Korean Anglicized name :-) Macgruder 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first table, neither Japan nor South Korea's entry has their anglicized name, so, why is there such a debate over which one should go first? Is J after S in any alphabet? Neier 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

island name : dokdo is ahead of takeshima.Dutyterms 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unbelievable!!

After pointing out some of the historical inaccuracies on this page, (see above) others squabble over "alphabetical order" of the flawed data.

first of all, 'request alphabetial order' is japanese did.Dutyterms 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

......sigh..............Clownface 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's because pretty much everything you wrote reads as original research. What you need to do is find quotes in English from reputable sources. Reading your intepretation of sources in Korean is not what Misplaced Pages is about. If the source material exists only in Korean then you need to find a reputation English language scholar who has written the pertinent information based on these sources. Macgruder 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

!

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)

I change my mind ; I'll wait for a better suggestion. Odst 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WHy redirect?

Why redirect to Liancourt Rocks? Use official name of it. If it became Jap territory, it should be Takeshima, but since legally or illegally Koreans are controlling these areas, we should call them Dokdo, not Liancourt Rocks. It's same thing as doing professional as pro in encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.108.120.26 (talk) 01:56:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from rude terms, such as jap. It is most quite infuriating. Odst 02:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn Misplaced Pages policy. The title name on Misplaced Pages is nothing to do with who controls or doesn't control the islands or the official name. (Or if you prefer go change the Germany page to Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and do the the same with all other countries and geographic entities and come back.) It depends on standard usage in English - particularly in respected sources such as encyclopedias. There was already a very very long discussion about this and the choice of Liancourt Rocks was the outcome - not everyone is happy about that but at least it seems this non-Japanese/Korean term has enabled this article to focus more on other pertinent issues and earn a better grade in the Misplaced Pages quality scale. Macgruder 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a much disputed topic... If we called it Dokdo, the Japanese wikipedians would get pissed, and if we called it Takeshima, the Korean Editors would get pissed. Besides, that area is internationally recognized as the Liancourt rocks...><

O Odst 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this map a draft of the peace treaty?

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)

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)

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)

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)

please, see this Dutyterms 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SCAPIN is being written. However, draft5 is not found. Cannot you distinguish SCAPIN and the peace treaty?--Opp2 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The example of the draft of the peace treaty is shown below.

• This is a draft by US on December, 1949.
• This is a draft by England on April, 1951.
• This is a draft by England and US on June, 1951.

Isn't your draft 5 a draft of this December, 1949? This map is not included in the draft. --Opp2 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The info box

Hey guys, we're going to keep Dokdo on top of Takeshima on the info box. Ok? Roger. I'm ready when you are, to start another row & revert wars & arbitrations etc. Ok? Good. (Wikimachine 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

No good. The controversy between Japan and South Korea needs fair treatment. so... I changed it back by alphabet order. --Boldlyman 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll report to WP:SOCK if you continue. And stop using Jonglish. (Wikimachine 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

If he is a sock as a result of the checkuser, he will be blocked by admin. I think you should not judge and make a threatening statement by only your guess before checkuser's result comes out. Though you have the right to report, you donot have the right to judge. --Opp2 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal about info box is KPOV. You should respect the alphabetical order for NPOV. --Opp2 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously Dokdo comes before Takeshima. D before T? I will not tolerate anything so messed up as this one. (Wikimachine 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

The name of the island is already Dokdo/Takeshima. You should see the top of the infobox. The name of the country has obviously Japan comes before South Korea. The subject about administration is country. The island(Takeshima) is the nonego(object). Can you understand?--Opp2 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal and would understand Korea first as the 'occupier', but unfortunately this is not Misplaced Pages policy which is clear on the matter:

"permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3...)"

This is clear and unambiguous Japanese comes before Korean (i.e. the languages) so Japan goes first. Sorry, this is Misplaced Pages policy Macgruder 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Misplaced Pages policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline. --Kusunose 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also not followed in some cases, e.g. Senkaku Islands. --Reuben 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw that & I changed it back. (Wikimachine 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

It's in precisely these situations that we follow the guidelines. Forget the Senkaku Islands. If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K. Macgruder 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand any of you. I voluntarily reverted my own edit before Opp2, Kusunose, Reuben, or you Macgruder said anything. Then, it's not necessary to say any of these words. However, it seems that some ppl especially like Macgruder (I say Macgruder b/c you are about 1 day late in your history cache) just love to point out & isolate some other ppl's mistakes and shape & phrase them as fundamental flaws - perfectly fitting if you want some evidences showing how unreliable or POv an editor is. And they these same ppl do some police action, like "read the guidelines". "You don't seem to understand the fundamental pillars of Misplaced Pages, from which our naming convention is also derived... you don't deserve to be an admin" I really appreciate all these proverbs & consultations you guys are offering. (Wikimachine 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Frankly, I have no clue what you are talking about. "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." is not exactly clear is it - especially coming after a comment about the Senkaku Islands having the reverse order. You seem to be over-reacting and paranoid that every comment is a personal attack on you. In fact, in this thread practically all I've done is point out the Misplaced Pages Policy/Guidelines. The only person turning this into a personal issue is yourself. Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you. Macgruder 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can both admit there was a misunderstanding, say sorry and move on, right? Phonemonkey 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd usually hope, but I don't expect that from Macgruder. And, no, Macgruder, only your sheer arrogance can allow you to make that generous comment about the modicum of respect ppl have for me. I haven't made edits to Senkaku Islands in a hundred years, and yes that's exactly how it was - crystal windows vista clear.

"20:11, 20 August 2007 (nvm, wrong ones) This was the revert that I made on myself. Immediate response was made by Opp2 on 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC). And Macgruder you're one day late, so at the end of the day, you being one day late on your history cache (your comp must run windows 95) is enough for me to suspect that you are being arrogant. And especially when ppl are arrogant, I don't go "'sorry' and move on". I make them learn their lesson, that day. (Wikimachine 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

And I get enough respect from everybody else, and I respect humankind in return, so forget about repeating that phrase to anyone else in Misplaced Pages. You have the wrong idea if you think I come to Misplaced Pages b/c I'm a complete loser & got nothing better to do. (Wikimachine 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Occupation or Control or Administration?

This article use the term of "control" and "administration" for present situation of Liancourt Rocks. However, it seems that "occupation" is more general than "control" and "administration".

• THE WORLD FACT BOOK by CIA
  

South Korea and Japan claim Liancourt Rocks (Tok-do/Take-shima), occupied by South Korea since 1954

• NEWS by BBC
  

Japan's and South Korea's claims go back centuries, but islands occupied by S Korea since 1953

• NEWS by washingtonpost
  

Occupied by South Korea in the 1950s, the islands are coveted largely for their fishing rights. The Japanese have called the occupation illegal.

• The Columbia Encyclopedia
  

the Liancourt Rocks are claimed by Japan and South Korea, and have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.

• Prof. Van Dykep45

Since Japan's relinquishment of control over Korea after its defeat in World War II, Korea and Japan have contested the ownership of Dok-Do, which are currently occupied by Korea.

• News week
  Angered by Japanese moves to survey a contested range of islets currently occupied by Korea--Opp2 16:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will correct it to a general term.--Opp2 06:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

so, should the infobox term govern be changed into the occupied? --Boldlyman 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I want to correct the following sentences to the general term.--Opp2 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First part

• South Korea currently controls the islets where they are known as Dokdo
• The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to them as Tok Islet in its English-language articles and supports control of the islands by "the Korean nation".

Part of "History of the territorial dispute"

• Japan protests Korea's claim and administration of the Liancourt rocks.
• The Korean Central News Agency of North Korea refers to the Liancourt rocks as "Tok Islet" in English, and publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".

Part of "Armed confrontations"

• After the incidents, in 1954, South Korea built a lighthouse and a helicopter landing pad on the islets, which it has regularly administered ever since.

Part of "After World War II and during occupied Japan"

• Japanese sovereignty which is mentioned in (b) were eventually recovered. Those mentioned in (c), for the most part, remain in Russian control (though disputed by Japan).

Part of "Recent developments"

• The dispute occasionally resurfaces, such as when South Korea built a wharf on the islets in 1996 and declared them a Natural Monument in 2002, spurred by a controversial Japanese textbook that called South Korea's control of the islets "illegal" that same year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Look, Opp2, it always seems as if you have some sort of a motive for doing these things. If you don't, then you don't need to consult the ppl at talk page. From plain grammatical perspective, the sole usage of the word "occupy" is not recommendable. And especially if you want to push JPOV that Japan also administers the island, I will not allow it. Even then, "administer" has 2 possible meanings that we can discuss about if you are willing to. (Wikimachine 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

You do not have the right to judge. You are not presenting the source at all. You should present the credible source by the third party who has uses the term of ”control" first. I donot want your original search. Thank you.--Opp2 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I donot want the original reserch and personal hope. I have already presented the source of the third party who is using "occupation" or "occupied" for NPOV. I request the source of a neutral organization for the rebuttal. --Opp2 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. Read the following just to figure out what kind of hole you're digging yourself in.

• Usage of "scattered" #: 61,900,000
• Usage of "disseminated" #: 18,500,000

All right. From today on, we're going to always use the word "scattered" & replace all words "disseminated" with "scattered" in all Misplaced Pages articles.

See what kind of nonsense you're saying? (Wikimachine 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

You have only changed the subject and you do not present the source. Therefore, I cannot help judging your insistence as an original research. Let's present the source of the third party who used "control" if you want to rebut. I have presented the source(occupation). You are not yet presenting the source(control or administration). Well, which insistence is NPOV?　Which term is general?　Thank you. ----Opp2 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In support of Opp2 - sources presented use the word "occupied". This justification, of course, ony remains valid until sources using other terms are presented.

In opposition to Opp2 - because "occupation" of a land can only be carried out by a foreign power, those who believe that the rocks are part of Korea would disagree with the term, whereas "controlled by" is undisputed and therefore NPOV. Phonemonkey 11:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to confirm to you because my English is poor. I have presented this problem many times. However, KPOV side insist that "occupation(occupied)" is grammatically wrong or "occupation", "control " and "administration" are quite the same meanings and impressions. Do you think so? I think that this your comment is true.

P.S. "Occupation" is used in various meanings. lawful acquisition of territory(title by occupation), lawful effective control and military occupation... Then, "occupation" is NPOV and it often uses in case of legally unsettled. Therefore, Japanese Government adds "illegal", and use the term of "illegal occupation by Korea". --Opp2 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what you say, because you're not going to simply replace all synonyms of "occupy" with "occupy". English is a much more sophisticated language over which you (Opp2, especially when you suck in English) don't have the right to limit its vocabulary. (Wikimachine 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

"Occupation", "control" and "administration" are not synonyms. Phonemonkey 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The insincere ID might have tried cheating me. There is another one question. Are the grammars of the following sentences wrong?

• Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan . South Korea currently controls occcupies the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.
  

CIA will have made a mistake, too, if this grammar is wrong. If this sentence is not sophisticate, the sentence of CIA and the Columbia Encyclopedia will not sophisticate too. A person who cannot present even the source is only making noise.--Opp2 05:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I present the source that use "occupation" as legal activities by a own power.

The Island of Palmas Case (famous judicial precedent)

In this judicial precedent, activities of East India Company was admitted as legal effective control. And, "occupatin" is used for the East India Company's activities. In addition, "occupation" is used also for legal title of the territorial acquisition.

• If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title – cession, conquest, occupation, etc.
• The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.
• Now, no act of occupation nor, except as to a recent period, any exercise of sovereignty at Palmas by Spain has been alleged.
• The acts of the East India Company (Generale Geoctroyeerde Nederlandsch Oost-Indische Compagnie), in view of occupying or colonizing the regions at issue in the present affair must, in international law, be entirely assimilated to acts of the Netherlands State itself.

I think you can consent to my claim with sources. "Occupation" has various meenings and is NPOV and best word.--Opp2 07:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why it would be the best word. Why should we not use other worsd just because you show a couple of usages of "occupy"? You don't make sense. You don't understand English enough to make such decisions/advocacies. (Wikimachine 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Watch the personal attacks. I could pick on your English, too, but I don't because it is irrelevant. Instead, answer his question directly; there isn't anything ungrammatical about using "occupies." We can discuss instead whether it is the best choice--and it's not outrageous to suggest it might be, given the (many) sources that use that very word (which happens to describe the situation a bit more accurately... the US "controls" many minor islands around Alaska with no human presence whatsoever). --Cheers, Komdori 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't centered simply on English mistakes - Opp2 acknowledgedly is deficient in English for one reason or another (other ppl observe this, he admits it). Wikimachine 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My wish is also that Opp2 gets down to the point straight. I don't like these indirect & cheap attempts to make loop holes around stuffs like "administer". (Wikimachine 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your answer. Is Wikimachine's insistence concrete and persuasive for native speaker? I think that he only is deceiving because he cannot find NPOV sources which support his claim.--Opp2 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Wikimachine. Opp2 wants the word "occupy" and has backed it up with sources. You merely try to disqualify him from his opinion because his English is poor. See the inbalance? Phonemonkey 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that he make looped the talk by an abstract concept and no sources. --Opp2 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You know it's not straight as you say. What he's trying to do is simply absurd. I'm still not convinced that "occupy" hold the exclusive position as the neutral term. To prove that "occupy" is the only neutral term to describe the situation is very difficult. Opp2 is better off not trying. He should try to prove that a specific term is not neutral instead. (Wikimachine 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Talk about pulling teeth... how about it being just more accurate instead of discussing everything based on "neutrality"? This is kind of a good example of what happens when you "bind articles" together inappropriately. I believe it was goodfriend who changed this article from "occupied" to "controlled" to match the Senkaku page. Unfortunately, the situation is different and the words (correctly) were reflecting that difference. Troops aren't present on Senkaku (so it's not occupied) but are present on Liancourt (so it is). In picking the single, best word (picking multiple ones would lead to an "arms race" of adjectives for both sides), it might be beneficial to pick the best term for the sake of accuracy. --Cheers, Komdori 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that the possibility to use the word of Senkaku is high. This means that my English was also unrelated. The insincere ID might have tried cheating me. And, this page is not a page of Senkaku. It is shown that there is no reasonable reason to use the word of "control" and "administration". --Opp2 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is neutrality. Again, it's up to Opp2 on how he approaches this question. You guys keep bringing up "Senkaku" but I don't understand what you mean by that. (Wikimachine 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

As for the talk of Senkaku, from what I gather from above my understanding is that someone originally changed "occupied" to "controlled" simply on the basis that this is the term also used on another article about another place. Is this correct? And sorry if this sounds harsh Wikimachine but "accuracy is neutrality" is a pretty bold statment to make which needs to be backed up with some sort of reasoning before it comes anywhere near convincing. Phonemonkey 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll stop mincing around with words here and just say I totally disagree with "accuracy is neutrality". If statement A describes a situation in more detail than statement B, does it automatically make statement A more neutral? Of course not. Phonemonkey 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He never describe situation in the detail. He only say I am correct and accurate. --Opp2 08:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useless no matter what we say to him. He cannot present the source. He cannot present the evidence though he is convinced that I am correct and accurate. I think that he wants only to oppose me and is age of resistance. Because the source of the rebuttal is not presented, I will retouch to "occupation" after this article release from protecting.--Opp2 08:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey--you're right. Here's the diff. (Good friend100's comment was "consistent with senkaku, edited first paragraph.") It had been somewhat stable at "occupied," then a compromise "maintains a physical presence" version surfaced, which I think is also perfectly accurate, and then was changed to "controls," only on the basis of it being used in the Senkaku Islands page, which I agree with both Phonemonkey and Wikimachine as being a terribly poor reason, especially considering the difference in situation that was reflected with the difference in terminology (as I mentioned above). At the time, many other "more important" content disputes were happening (i.e. affecting more major amounts of content). --Cheers, Komdori 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we can go back to "maintains a physical presence?" --Reuben 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be for that, as long as no one objects to it being a little wordy (I don't). --Cheers, Komdori 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of this as clean business. Some of you guys are so JPOV that you get insulted by the slightest offense - hmm should we use control or occupy or having been invaded or maintains physical presence? Ahh, I like maintains physical presence so much better b/c it's not a occupation but it really is. Duh... I don't really care what change is made as long as it doesn't sweat. English is something that you can't limit just with NPOV. And yes, neutrality is accuracy. Misplaced Pages describes, not prescribes. It doesn't matter if there are a billion opposing viewpoints, it's simply impossible to present all viewpoints & emphasizing some viewpoints that are not widely accepted over accepted ones is POV. (Wikimachine 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, your accusation of "JPOV" rings empty unless you explain why. Your assertion that a viewpoint is "not widely accepted" is not backed up by sources to counter the ones which Opp2 has presented. And of course you can have sentences which are factually correct but present only one point of view, so no, accuracy does not equate to neutrality. "Maintain a physical presence" is suitable for some of the sentences in the article but I do think it might be a bit wordy to use every single time. Phonemonkey 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Phonemonkey, rules in Misplaced Pages are not realistic & often contradict each other. I often think that some of you are so immersed in this made up system that your thought process becomes unreal. You simply can't say that we're going to use "occupy" or "physical presence" as the sole term to describe the situation on Liancourt Rocks simply by using Google stats. Just like "scattered" and "disseminated". Who cares if "occupy" is more used?

Also, you guys don't even understand the situation. I'll clear out some clouds over your heads.

• S. Korea occupies Liancourt Rocks.
• Japan & S. Korea administer (i.e. register) Liancourt Rocks as one of their provinces, states, etc.
• S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks (here, "administer" used in different context w/ the word 'rights').

Now, some of you with uber sensitive skin might turn pale if it says "occupy" so you guys asked for "physical presence", which is ridiculous "compromise". If you have ever taken a formal English course, you always say the fewest words to say something. "maintains physical presence" is definitely longer than "occupy". I'm even guessing that some of you think that "occupy" is POV b/c it's stating as a fact while it's my guess that "maintains physical presence" tries to invoke this sense of illegit presence. But if we were to do that we might just as well say that "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island disputed by Japan". We're not.

(Wikimachine 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

"S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks" and "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island" is extreme KPOV. You do not understand International Law at all. No one has the jurisdiction for determination of the administrative rights now. There is no source in your insistence. You do not write a novel but should present the source.--Opp2 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Opp2, if you want to have a productive discussion, tell me why it's contrary to the international laws instead of telling me it's extreme KPOV. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks. Why? It controls it. What's Japan going to do, come in with the JSDF? No. (Wikimachine 01:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Who decided "S. Korea has administrative rights over Liancourt Rocks" and "Liancourt Rocks is a Korean island"? Korea? Japan? ICJ? UN? Please show me the source of your recognition.--Opp2 02:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Opp2 and Wikimachine, back to the topic please. Phonemonkey 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. However, as for the conversation with him, I think time to be useless. He only deceives because he cannot present the source. --Opp2 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, what's this unrealistic Misplaced Pages rule did I supposedly bring up? And I thought you were the one who were against the word "occupy", did I miss something here? Because your above post implies that you have no problem with the word "occupy", am I correct? In which case what are we debating here, Wikimachine? And feel free to address the points I actually brought up in my previous post. In your own time, of course..Phonemonkey 02:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not I'm getting off the subject. Opp2 & I have been on this discussion for such a long time that we know exactly what we're talking about and that all these are related. Sry for being confusing, but it seems that there are 3 sides here - those who advocate sole usage of occupy, another for physical presence, and third for none of these crap. (Wikimachine 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

He was not able to present the source for long time. He has attributed my English and been deceiving for long time. He cannot present the source still.--Opp2 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to. You haven't given a source either. Yours is original research. Unless you have a scholarly article explaining why using "occupy" in context of describing the situation with the Liancourt Rocks dispute is POV, you can't use it. (Wikimachine 04:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please confirm to other people. It is only you that say my original reserch. Is it this time OR? You change the reason. Do you withdrew the previous reason which is English grammar. After all, it was a lie. --Opp2 04:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can split this a bit. It would be nice to agree on something for the opening (face it, the only bit most people read) and then discuss something for the rest of the article. As before, I'd suggest "occupies" or "maintains physical presence" for the opening. As for the rest, if we are unable to agree on a term everywhere perhaps we can work out a way to avoid using anything. If you look at the sentences quoted from the article, it wouldn't be too hard to simply avoid this issue entirely for most of them. --Cheers, Komdori 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If the reason which use the word of "maintains physical presence" is solicitude to Korean mind which is "Takeshima is a Korean territory", I cannot agree. It is KPOV. If "maintains physical presence" is used, it is necessary to emphasize the fact of the protest of Japan. --Opp2 05:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason would be because some people seemed to have a misconception that "occupied" might imply that it is necessarily illegal. I think everyone can agree that saying "Korea illegally occupies" or "Korea legally occupies" are both probably too POV-based statements to be acceptable. "Maintains physical presence" would mean just that Korea stations troops there, rightly or wrongly. I really don't see much difference between these two alternatives and would support eithe at this point. --Cheers, Komdori 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If this word that doesn't become familiar is used for Korean, I think that it is necessary to emphasize the protest of Japan for Japanese.(ex. despite repeated protests by Japan)

“South Korea has built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets despite repeated protests by Japan.”

I think that "built lodgings, lighthouses and a monitoring facility on the islets" is same meaning as "maintains physical presence". However, "also claimed by Japan" is weaker than "despite repeated protests by Japan" and "maintains physical presence". On International Law, the protest is a very important method of displaying sovereignty.

And, do you think about the North Korea comment in the opening? It use "control". Is the story of North Korea necessary in the opening? The government-controlled station in North Korea is a source. I think it is very political and unworthy. In addition, the same document is also in "History of the territorial dispute". --Opp2 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Komdori. How about "SK has maintained a military presence since 1953", with or without the Japanese protest bit. This is about the opening paragraph. Phonemonkey 13:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey 13:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the protection

Return the protection to semi-protection so editors can make needed changes. My last three edits, and the one interwiki fix before me today can in no way be considered part of an edit war. Full protection is inappropriate here, and such protection puts off genuine editors such as myself. If necessary block the editors that are edit warring instead.

This change is needed:

The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), with their highest point at 169 meters (554 ft) in the western islet.

should be changed to:

The total area of the islets is about 187,450 square meters (2,017,695 sq ft), and sources vary as to their highest point: truthofdokdo.or.kr claims the western islet (Seodo) is 151 meters and korea.net claims 169 meters (554 ft).

-Wikianon 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that that would sound clumsy. If sources vary as to the altitude of their highest point I reckon it would be best to quote the generally accepted figure (if such figure exists) or at least try to say something like "estimates vary between XXX and YYY" and cite the references. Phonemonkey 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please address the incorrect translations on this page

I pointed out the historical errors of the 1667 Report on Oki written by Saito Hosen above. From there I provided at least three separate citations written in English from publications by credible sources. I'm still curious why this error hasn't been dealt with.

Misplaced Pages reads. In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hessen 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.

But in reality the document reads. 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 this "州" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Nowhere in Saito Hosen's report does it say Ulleungdo (Matsushima) marks the northwest boundary of Japan. In fact, Ulleungdo was called Takeshima at this time. "Thus, this "州" is the northwest boundary of Japan.

The character "州" in Kanji (chinese based-characters) means area or province. If you read the text of Saito Hosen't report he used the character "州" to denote province and used the character "島" to mean island.

Again, 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 "州" province or area markes the northern boundary of Japan.

Here are the English sources that concur with what I've pointed out.

http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html

Scroll down to chapter 10 (X) 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 another reference from Han Key Lee's article published by Seoul University Press in 1969. The information on Saito Hosen's Oki 1667 Report on Oki is on page ten. It too states the boundary of Japan was Oki Province (Island) NOT Matsushima.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/leehankey-legal.hwp

Although I've linked these documents from my website they were originally downloaded in there unedited form from this website. I did this because you cannot hotlink directly to them (for some reason it doesn't work) The original page where I obtained publications of the Korea Observer can be found at this link.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htm

The errors I'm pointing out have nothing to do with "interpretation" or POV. The errors Misplaced Pages has made in this example are an incorrect translation of a historical document as a result of intensive JPOV lobbying. This is a separate issue from Dokdo as a political issue. This should be rectified.

Here is my page on the Saito Hosen report. You can view the original document itself and compare the actual text and translation.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

Misplaced Pages should stop bickering over silly issues such as alphabetical order and definitions of words like "occupation" and address the incorrect translations and lack of primary maps and documents here.Clownface 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you describe both theories(province and island), I will agree to correct. And, I think that you will agree to the correction of many KPOV descriptions (looks like terra nullius and Japanese contradiction theory). --Opp2 01:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)