Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:40, 6 December 2007

Template:ArbcomArticle

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Japan This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 10:28, December 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Template:Lame

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Create using the "move procedure"

Requested moves to date

1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New rules of conduct

Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?

I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.

• All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it.

• Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).

• Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.

• Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.

• Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, although I believe the root of the issue is problems in the consensus building process on this talk page, and this is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Phonemonkey 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You probably got a point there. And I must commend you for setting a good example in your section (#Second paragraph) above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I see very little need to "cooperate" on edits that have slipped in by their pushing instead of consensus. These were never agreed in consensus. (Wikimachine 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

P.S. Oh, never mind. yes, please have those rouge rules in place, but please see the Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Faking.2Fasserting_non-existent_consensus. The current version does not go with consensus. Also, I disagree nearly completely with your focus on me & Clownface @ Liancourt Rocks (it's a completely neutral version). Then clarify whether I should revert to the version prior to the dispute (b/c any new dispute must take place with the article in previous status) or if not what the rationale would be. (Wikimachine 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Hello administrator. At least, there is a naming convention about "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" by precursors, for avoiding edit war. Please see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea). So if Wikipedians remember it, a little seed of unnecessary reverting will be removed... --Nightshadow28 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Economy and tourism: Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence

Economy and tourism section starts from

"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"

I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June). I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005 which describes:

"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo and Seoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."

Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?

Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005 and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).

　本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。

In addition, WP:LAME describes:

"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."

Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))--Jjok (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I come here from WP:LAME, where Jjok inserted an edit (and link to here) regarding this matter. I apologize for hastily reverting Jjok, but, in any case, it's not much appreciated by people that watch WP:LAME when people editing some controversial article go try and edit the entry on WP:LAME. Leave that to people that are impartial and not part of the battle.

Unfortunately, it's clear to me Jjok's bias has led to an unfair edit on this page. The original (unsubstantiated, it seems) claim is that "thousands of Japanese" claim Liancourt Rocks as their residence. Now Jjok inserts material that 26 have it listed as the ancestral home of their koseki. The koseki has nothing to do with where a Japanese person resides (as Jjok seems aware). It only lists the ancient, historical home of the family. So Jjok's edit had the result (even if unintentional) of making the Japanese number much smaller (while describing something different). Although Jjok disputes the numbers about residence, the also unsubstantiated Korean number was left alone. Why?

The claim regarding these numbers may not be solid. An old version of the article shows it used to say over 900 Korean residents and 2000 Japanese residents. I couldn't find out where this came from, and there is no mention of it in the Hankooki reference for the sentence after that claim. Someone tried tagging it with a citation-needed tag, but it was removed for no good reason . At some point the Du Mars reference mentioned above was added . At a later point, the "over 900" was changed to "hundreds" and "over 2000" was changed to "thousands". I suppose the point of that is to make the Korean number seem much smaller than the Japanese number. Recently, an anonymous IP changed the "hundreds" to "thousands" (to make the Korean number seem comparable, obviously) . This happened between two edits by Jjok, but either this was not seen or Jjok didn't consider it worth fixing.

Anyway, it seems the claim of hundreds or thousands of Koreans or Japanese listing it as a residence is unsubstantiated, so should be removed. As a joke, it is still funny, so I expect it will remain on WP:LAME. It's clear at some point that both governments were making claims of permanent residence, even when no citizen was living there. So the point of the joke holds: "serious" edit warriors should register a residence there to make their point! --C S (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

revisiting "administration" issue

I know this has probably already been decided, but the "administration" box just doesn't sit well with me in terms of accurately depicting the actual situation.

The indisputable facts are that both countries claim the islets and South Korea occupies them. One would not get that impression from the order (Japan first, then South Korea).

There has also been some protest over use of the word "administration."

Administration is the act of administering, which would mean "having charge of or managing." Japan does not have charge of the islets, nor does it manage it. South Korea has police forces residing on the islets and patrols the waters around the islets, which would qualify as "administering."

I think that a reasonably similar case would be a more appropriate model for the language to use, that of the Southern Kuril Islands, which are claimed by both Japan and Russia, but are controlled by Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Kuril_Islands_dispute

The disputed islands are currently under Russian administration as part of the Sakhalin Oblast, but are also claimed by Japan, which refers to them as the Northern Territories (北方領土 Hoppō Ryōdo) or Southern Chishima (南千島 Minami Chishima).

Thus, I'm suggesting that the administration box be changed to put South Korea first as "administered by" and Japan go second as something along the lines of "also claimed by."

If Japan is to be included as part of "administration," I wonder if North Korea shouldn't also be included, since they claim "Tok islet" as "part of the inviolable territory of Korea," of which they claim all, meaning territory held by the DPRK and ROK (as South Korea also does).

http://north-korea.narod.ru/history_3.htm

Personally, I think it would be terrifically misleading to say North Korea "administers" Tokto/Takeshima, even silly, but it's not that much less misleading to say Japan administers them.--Kushibo (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the islets are administered by South Korea but also claimed by Japan. There aren't any regions in the world that have multiples of administerations. Kingj123 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many users here do not know the distinctive differences between "administrative divisons" and "administration." They are totally different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingj123 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This island is disputed between Japan and Korea and currently occupied by Korea, as opening paragraph. It argued about that repeatedly. --W/mint 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Explain why you don't disagree. The islets are administered by Korea not Japan.

It's very simple. Because you guys have only repeated the argument of the South Korean government. The present situation of this islets are explained as follows.

• by SK government;"The islets are administered by Korea and claimed by Japan."
• by JP government;"The islets are illegal occupied by Korea despite claimed by Japan."
• by third parties;"The islets are currently occupied by Korea." (A few months ago, some citations were showed here as you know.)--W/mint 11:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the info in administeration section, because administeration differs from administrative division. Kingj123 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree,too.

Pinnacle Islands, disputed island from China and Japan.

"The Senkaku Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands are a group of disputed, uninhabited islands currently controlled by Japan, but also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)."

I support change word. 774townsclear 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Occupies word is JPOV.

support change word. "controlled" or ""administration" word is better. it is NPOV. 774townsclear 04:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occupy" is NPOV and general term--Opp2 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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

Why is Japanese claim and Korean claim treated equally?

With all due respect to Japanese claims, Liancourt Rocks are officially a part of South Korea, while Japan is officially claiming Liancourt Rocks to be a part of Japan. Therefore, it is misleading for the claims of two countries to be treated equally. Tinned Butterfly (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Renewed warning

I see renewed revert-warring. Let me remind you all that the rules against uncooperative editing are still in place here. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too, as an uninvolved admin. If I see any more warring, I will protect the pages. Thank you. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence that South Korean government subsidizes civilian inhabitants? (nt)

A accurate quote or link is required. John Nevard (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

controvercial topic

John Nevard, I do not agree with your immediately edit. At first,it had discussed what expression is used the opening paragraph time after time. Probably you have not read those yet, please read already archived discussion recently. In the discussion so far,we had read many citations (by third party) which is using "occupied" not "administration" for the present situation of this islets. The most important point, the description of the opening paragpagh is a highly controversial topic according to the edits history and archived talk pages. Such issue should not be updated until any consensus is established on talk page especially this article. Therefore, You yourself should revert your edits to last version before somebody does it. Then, you can do the proposal of updating contents. So, It is a suggestion in order to keep your good faith. Thank you,--W/mint 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be more helpful if both of you outlined what exactly you find objectionable about the other person's version. The differences certainly look minor to me, so where's the beef? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your care. I'd like to point out the followings;

• This is a opening paragraph which mean the essence of outline. The situation of this islets should have been explained accurately there.
• In third parties view, the present situation of this islets is regarded to the "occupied by SK Gov." not "administrated by SK Gov. " or "illegal occupied by SK Gov.". Many citation were showed here already.
• However, User:John Nevard's edit is explaining the sutiation as "Korean occupy and administrate..." The citations which were presented by User:John Nevard also doesn't explain the situation as "administrated by SK Gov." If "South Korean" mean 66-years old fisherman and wife, still more such a detailed issue should not be written to the opening paragraph. (It is already written to the paragraph of Economy and tourism.)--W/mint 13:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of the U.S. after S.F. treaty

The present description contradicts official records of the United States. Official records of the United States are here. The description was corrected based on these Official records as follows.

In 1951, during the Korean War, Lieutenant General John B. Coulter affiliated with the U.S. Army in Korea requested and received permission from South Korea to use the islets for military exercises. However in the negotiation on the bombing area between U.S. government and ROK, the U.S. government send a diplomatic document to Korea and refused the Korean claim.

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that' Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."

though it is unknown whether such permission was also requested of Japan.(comment:This description contradicts official material of the USA.) Barely a year later,(comment:This description contradicts official material of the USA. The impression putting is done by presumption based on the poor evidence.) on July 26, 1952, the United States Government made a security agreement with Japan listing the island as a "facility of the Japanese Government" because U.S. government judged that Liancourt Rocks is Japanese territory by the rusk documents.The military exercises included bombing the islets similar to U.S. military uses of Vieques, in Puerto Rico and Kahoolawe, in the occupied Hawaiian Islands.(comment:It is not important.)

Please point out any mistakes in my grammar you find. And, because US army permission in 1951 is an event before signing the San Francisco treaty (naturally, it doesn't come into effect), the position of the first sentence about US army is wrong too. That is, it is an activity based on the wartime occupation by Allies, and it is quite unrelated to the SF treaty. Where should we move this sentence?--Opp2 (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, from the way you present this material I cannot work out where what parts of it are taken from and what you actually want to say. Can you refactor please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the beginning of your third paragraph, "States of August 10,1951 ..." apparently has some material missing. That's a fragmented sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I deleted the third paragraph.--Opp2 (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• point1. U.S government send formal diplomatic document to Korea. The document protest Korean claim.

This was done in response to the ROK protest of the alleged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.'The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in assistant Secretary dated August 10,1951."

• point2.Security agreement with Japan is a formal intergovernmental treaty. Because the United States had admitted the sovereignty of Japan, this treaty was concluded.

(Introduction of rusk document) The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified.

My amendment bill is almost the same as the OFFICIAL document(That is, it words it of U.S. government）. My interpretation is not added.--Opp2 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still utterly confused about what you are trying to say here. Your additions only add to that confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply, U.S. government did not change the recognition of the rusk documents. This is not POV. US government recorded so. The recognition of the rusk documents is to refuse the Korean claim.　--Opp2 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the rusk documents is as follows.

"We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim."

This is not POV. US government recorded so.--Opp2 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is POV of US government. --Appletrees (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• NA-Class Japan-related pages
• NA-importance Japan-related pages
• WikiProject Japan articles