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 Because of this historical reference Takeshima is Ulleungdo, Matsushima cannot be Ulleungdo here because it is described as a neighbour island of Ulleungdo.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)

opening part

• South Korea currently controls occupies 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 occupation 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 maintained ever since despite repeated protests by Japan.

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 occupation (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 occupation 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)

Komdori, your reasoning is so messed up. "illegally legally ocuppies" and "illegally legally maintains physical presence" are the same things. If you truly think that "occupy" has some sort of negative connotation - that might be the Japanese occupation etc. I have to question the motives behind these discussions. It's so obvious to me. You guys are so POV & sensitive to these things that you have to have a debate on which word to use when all of them have similar meanings. (Wikimachine 15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

• Please feel free to continue throwing about accusations of "POV" "questionable motive" etc. but I hope you're aware that they will continue to be meaningless until you illustrate the reasoning process through which you arrived at that conclusion. Since it's so "obvious" to you, why keep it to yourself?
• I'm trying to find the bit where someone was supposedly too "sensitive" to the word "occupy". I take it's not the bit where Komdori actually suggested using the word "occupy"  ?
• So I take it you have no problems now with the word "occupy" (since your initial opposition based on English grammar seems to have disappeared into the ether), so my understanding is that you are now happy with Opp2's suggestion. Phonemonkey 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well since it was an accusation to Komdori, let him reply. I gave my warrants - including the fact that we're making a big deal out of something so trivial - whether to use cookie or pie? No, I don't have to repeat myself for my arguments to stay. Think of this as linear history. What I have said all stay. (Wikimachine 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

What a time wasting exercise; I didn't respond because Phonemonkey pretty much said it all--if you have no objection to using the word "occupy," as you seemed to have before, great. I'm not sure from where the POV accusation came since (as Phonemonkey pointed out) I actually suggested as an alternative the word with which you mistakenly seem to have thought I had an issue. Read over what everyone said; it seems you are ardently arguing in agreement with everyone else... --Cheers, Komdori 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was never aimed at anyone. I misread my own post. Still your compromises are nonsensical. (Wikimachine 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

There isn't even any need for a compromise since I take it you no longer object to "occupy". Phonemonkey 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey, your proposal which is "military presence" has the possibility of becoming the factor of the edit war. The rebuttal that it is not an army but the police that it is in Liancourt Rocks is expected from KPOV side. It should be "peaceful" for lawful occupation in International Law. Then SK is making not military forces but the special police reside for pretending peaceful occupation. The realities are military forces though the surface is the police. This is makeshift propaganda by SK because peaceful occupation is decided by with or without protests of another country. However, the person who believes the propaganda of SK will cause the edit war.--Opp2 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Opp2, I agree with your concerns about "military presence" being potentially controversial but please see this as a NPOV vs POV issue, not a KPOV vs JPOV issue. Phonemonkey 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that "ocuppies" is the best because he says that ocuppies and maintains physical presence are same things. Simple is best.--Opp2 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Look Opp2, the world is never simple & it's not either A or B. It could both A and B. Who knows? So what if "occupy" is simple? "administer" is simple too. "control" is simple. So why is it that we should use only "occupy"? This is already a lost argument. (Wikimachine 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Because "occupy", "administer" and "control" are not synonyms. And who was the person who said "some of you with uber sensitive skin might turn pale if it says "occupy"? Phonemonkey 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You might have lost track, phonemonkey. Remember that there were 3 sides - 1 for no change, 1 for "occupy" only, and 1 for "physical presence". And so what if they are not synonymous? No God told me to use "occupy" only in Liancourt Rocks. Such advocacy is ridiculous and unreal. (Wikimachine 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Again, if you read the discussion again you will see that this is a follow-on to Komdori's suggestion which is to rephrase the opening section. I have already made clear that I am only talking about the opening paragraph just in case it was missed the first time.Phonemonkey 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Occupy" has sources. "Control" doesn't have the source. Though I found only one source that used "control", the source uses "occupation" too. You are only making noise without making an effort like this. No one will support your insistence if you merely complains without sources and evidences. Therefore, present choices are "occupies" or "maintains physical presence". You are not a judge.--Opp2 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my comments still apply. I might seem to have made contradictory arguments but I didn't b/c I was answering 2 sides. (Wikimachine 01:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

The following are amendment bills of opening.

• South Korea currently controls occupies the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.

• South Korea currently controls maintains physical presence the islets where they are known as Dokdo, but they are also claimed despite repeated protests by Japan where they are known as Takeshima.

I want the opinion and indication about the grammar. --Opp2 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I like occupies better but controls is fine too i guess... we've gone over "despite repeated protests" - we don't need that & it sounds stupidly awkward. (Wikimachine 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Source

In November 1997, despite repeated protests by Japan, a docking facility to enable use by a 500t supply ship was completed. In December 1998, a manned lighthouse was completed.

It should be "occupies" based on sources. "maintains physical presence" is a conceded idea for Korean mind. I want to describe the repeated protests by Japan clearly. It is a give-and-take. However, I do not persist in the word "despite". I want alternatives. --Opp2 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that that was in the intro & the protest was specific to the building of the docking facility. We don't want any plagiarism. (Wikimachine 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

• Method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea: maintains physical presence on the islans
• Method of displaying sovereignty of Japan: express repeated protest

Should we emphasize only the method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea why? The protest is a peaceful and legal countercheck to invalidate a one-sided occupation. I want to change proposal1 to "protest" too. However, I am enduring it. If South Korea responds to the reference to ICJ, this problem will be solved. It is South Korea that refuses a peaceful, final, impartial solution deflecting. Can you understand? You only complain. You do not make an effort and do not endure for agreement.--Opp2 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just not good as "and claimed by Japan". They both say the same thing, but "repeated protest by Japan" just sounds disturbing. It's as if S. Korea repeatedly rejected something so obviously true (indicated by "despite"). Just bad connotations. (Wikimachine 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Should we emphasize only the method of displaying sovereignty of South Korea why? Should we "indicate" only the insistence on the sovereignty of Japan? Japanese Protests are true. It is also true that South Korea is one-sidedly occupying. It only has to write the fact directry. When the fact is written directry, South Korea is doing awkward. Therefore, do you tell it that Japan must hold back? Your logic is contradicted. --Opp2 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You have both already agreed that you are happy with the word "occupy" so you are arguing about the details of a "compromise" which is not even necessary. Stop biting each other for the sake of it. Phonemonkey 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not going for a compromise. Opp2 wants this addition " despite Japanese protests" I don't want that. And no Opp2 you'll go no further than what is written currently. Details of Japanese protests can go in the body paragraphs. (Wikimachine 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, please check out WP:OWN--everything moves by consensus, and you don't unilaterally set what will or will not appear in the opening. I can see the point that it might be nice to balance a description of an active action of occupation with an active action of protest--but I'm hesitant to suggest any version that has too much working on one side or another since it could be perceived as unbalanced. At least we're moving forward a bit and seem to have settled on the term "occupy." Might we be able to move toward a balanced opening asserting that both claim it, that it's occupied, balanced by official protests? It's a bad idea to push the (quite obviously) most important aspect of this region into the body. --Cheers, Komdori 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't feel like owning this article at all, I made very few edits to it anyways (except for the intro & that was b/c of the dispute). Of course, all the will not will are rhetorical & are based on the previous dispute on the intro (consensus already established & by that I have mandate to keep it so). But again Komdori your dualism suggestion is not reasonable. Anything could be actively done & the question is not whether or not something is "actively" done but that it is actively "done". Fact of the matter is, "claimed by Japan" is more than substantial & provides all the summary that should go into the introductory sentence. Maybe after the introductory sentence it could be more elaborated on with the mention of Japanese protests & the international law theory etc..... all that in the intro, too if that's what Opp2 wants but he has not suggested that. Also Komdori, I'm very sure what Opp2 visions of as the neutral title (look in the archive, he provided several alternatives) & they all got rejected b/c they sounded too POV & too provocative. Thus I'm not at all interested in approaching Opp2 on this matter again. (Wikimachine 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, it seems to have been confused by me. Because opening is decided to the proposal1, let's discuss the other parts. --Opp2 02:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have decided opening to proposal1. I want to do the following to a basic policy about other parts for NPOV.

• The use of "occupation(occupy)" is assumed to be a principle. Because it is a word that the third party who can trust is using most.
• The use of "administraton" and "control" is enabled when described clearly as the interpretation and claim of South Korea.

I added the amendment bill based on this policy. Please see above my posting of this part(Opp2 14:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)). A political insistence of North Korea was reiterated two times. I delete it from opening because NK is not a party in charge, she doesnot have any right and quantitative balance with Japan are bad. And, because it is not opening and the present source is SK media, I added "despite repeated protests by Japan" to the sentence of the part of Armed confrontations based on third party's source. I want the opinion and indication about the grammar.--Opp2 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can probably trim the bit about N. Korea thinking the "Korean peninsula" should control it (or at least move that down into the body) since they are not an active party in the dispute (any more than other third party nations are). As for the other issues, maybe something like, "Liancourt is claimed by both South Korea and Japan. South Korea currently occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." Not perfect, I'm sure, but maybe a start--I tried to avoid using the word "despite," and packed a bit more information in to boot. I'd strongly urge people to suggest improvements on it rather than just saying they don't like it. Wikimachine: I'm not sure what your comment on dualism was except to mean that you would rather not have a neutral (dual) opening (a non-npov opening would of course not really be a possibility by the npov "rules"). --Cheers, Komdori 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this might be time to discuss this type of POV that I'll call "negative POV". The best example would be this title. Liancourt Rocks is neutral, as you say. Korea claims it. Japan claims it. But who owns it? S. Korea. And what does Japan want? A disputed status. "Liancourt Rocks" is thus slightly more JPOV than it is KPOV b/c it indirectly challenges S. Korea's legitimacy in its control & b/c all Japan wants is a disputed status (which Liancourt Rocks indicates) (don't forget that American studies found S. Korea's claim to be stronger). Same goes with this "claim - claim" dualism. I won't go into it further, & instead bring this POVness that I sense into light again. You guys are so sensitive to these slightest offenses or connotations or indications etc. that you want to make a change that really makes no difference. (Wikimachine 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Now that I have time I'll write more - that is if the US controls a territory, there is no need to say that the US control the territory and claims it. US doesn't need to claim what it controls. (Wikimachine 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

This is untrue; the US controls many areas it does not claim (look at the areas in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.). Possession in general is essentially meaningless in terms of territory (this isn't possession like owning something--if I break into your house and keep you out at gunpoint, it doesn't make me the owner, especially if you make official protests). It also doesn't matter what other nations think (you've got it backwards, the American analysis found the Japanese claim was stronger than ours, but that's essentially besides the point, too). What the ICJ thinks might be relevant, but for whatever reason Korea refuses to go. The bottom line is it is not our place to evaluate the quality of the claim, but set both up equally. Since you find the proposed version "a change that really makes no difference," I guess it means you are not opposed, and have no better suggestion. --Cheers, Komdori 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And now back to the topic of discussion - Komdori, I like your suggestion for the opening and I take it we are unanimous on this. (As for Wikimachine's comment above - because he is obviously attempting to shift the discussion elsewhere, I have posted a reply to him elsewhere - in a new section, where it belongs, down below.) Phonemonkey 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"the US controls many areas it does not claim" which is also not true. US openly states that this will be a temporary occupation. A better equivalent would be US controlling the state of Tennessee & proclaiming a statement claiming Tennessee even after it has controlled it for 150 years.

"Possession in general is essentially meaningless" which I know to be false - I'm a policy debater.

"you've got it backwards" No I didn't, this is from Yale Global. Japan asserted its legal claim then, even though, based on the International Crisis Group’s review of historical records, Korea had a stronger claim.

"set both up equally." which, again as I've said, leads to "Negative POV" (under your definition as i see, but I think that it is set up as neutral and equally as it can get) - it's kind of like double negative (you know how you multiply two negative numbers to create a positive number)

"Since you find the proposed version "a change that really makes no difference" which is true on the factual level but not on discourse level - in other words, those two statements contain no difference in terms of the information they provide, but one is POV & one is not. So I oppose it. (Wikimachine 23:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

And Phonemonkey, I think you got the picture backward. I was responsive to Opp2, remember? Maybe that's what you need for him, but I'm all go on the intro discussion here & we can formally begin a dispute & RFC & arbitration whenever you want. I don't think that all the people who are concerned about this article are present & perceive this as a minor discussion. (Wikimachine 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for komdori, It seems that your proposal is very nice, though I do not understand an English nuance. Please let me make only one the opinion. I think "occupation" and "uninhabited" are so unrelated. Even if it is an uninhabited island, records of the cadastre and the government official lands for the investigation are admitted as the evidences of effective occupation in the judicial precedent. I think that your comment about defference between Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku before is not accurate. Therefore, I think that we need not emphasize "uninhabited".--Opp2 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "emphasize uninhabited" is my mistake. Because occupation has a meaning not physical occupation, I think that it should add "physically". --Opp2 08:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is so out of the blue, Opp2. We don't need to emphasize anything. The intro is as fine as it can get. These proposals are illegitimate and unnecessary. There was no dispute to begin with, there is no compromise to make. (Wikimachine 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Your insistence has neither the source nor evidence. --Opp2 02:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What? ??? I don't need an evidence showing that you are not responsive or that your suggestions have no point. (Wikimachine 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

komdori, I corrected a little and the explanation of the islands name was added. "Liancourt is claimed by both Japan and South Korea. South Korea currently occupies physically the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan. The islands is called Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan."--Opp2 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We can make it a little shorter while saying the same thing. How about: "The Liancourt Rocks are claimed by both Japan where they are known as Takeshima and South Korea where they are known as Dokdo. South Korea currently physically occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." I also switched the order of a couple words to make it flow better. I like "physically" better than "militarily" to ruffle the fewest feathers possible. Wikimachine, I will respond to your queries in the section below. --Cheers, Komdori 13:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will retouch the article if it waits for several days, and there is no rebuttal based on a concrete source.--Opp2 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, Komdori, good work. Phonemonkey 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but if I perceive that you guys are crowding me out & trying to manipulate the outside perception of the consensus here, I'll resort to the actions that I've listed above & you'll have to deal with it. It better be something legit. (Wikimachine 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

If you presented an accurate and reliable source, everyone would consider your insistence. However, you did not do it. You tried only to press your opinion and your original research. You only complained.--Opp2 01:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Komdori, you're so good at getting other peoples' mistakes. Why not explain to Opp2 that his "evidence" is original research? You take root beers & cheers all the time but you're really terrible at these real stuffs. (Wikimachine 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, the reason why I indicated that I agree with Komdori's suggestion is quite simply because I agree with Komdori's suggestion - "The Liancourt Rocks are claimed by both Japan where they are known as Takeshima and South Korea where they are known as Dokdo. South Korea currently physically occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan." . I will be happy to consider your objection if you actually explain why, instead of dancing around at the side throwing paranoid accusations around and generally not making any sense. Phonemonkey 12:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, ppl only know what they've experienced so sounds like you had to deal w/ paranoia some time ago. I was talking about Opp2's list of defs & examples of the usage of the word "occupy".

Back to your proposal, I thought I already explained. S. Korea controls the island, it doesn't need to claim it again, and Japanese protest is illegit. This is how I see it, Phony. You ask why not? I ask you why yes. When something is already neutral & fine, why try to change it? That attitude is POV. You seem to try to build this assertion that in any dispute the two parties must be equal - that's simply not true. Maybe dispute over Antarctica but not this one. Misplaced Pages should describe, not prescribe. Simply, trying to represent a view that is accepted less on the equal level as the dominant viewpoint is prescription. (Wikimachine 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

It's a good thing that you can (finally) see and admit your own bias. You feel that, "S. Korea controls the island, it doesn't need to claim it again, and Japanese protest is illegit." The Japanese position is that the illegal occupation by South Korea of sovereign Japanese territory is indeed illegitimate, and rather than escalate to bloodshed (when they are already constantly accused of militarism) they'd rather settle the matter in the very international court set up to settle this type of matter. Writing either exclusively according to your bias or to a Japanese one would be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This is a main answer to your "why must we be neutral" question. —LactoseTI 00:03, 2 September 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)

Hi, sorry to interrupt, but I was just wondering if 竹島 is read as 죽도 (Jukdo) in Korean, and ta-ke-shi-ma in Japanese. If so, why is the small island next to 울릉도 (uellungdo) also read as Jukdo (in Korean)?Amphitere 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Japan want a disputed status?

This is in response to user Wikimachine's comment in above sections. The comment is not directly relevant to the topic of discussion in that section so I am posting a response here to keep the two discussions apart.

This is his comment in part: "Now this might be time to discuss this type of POV that I'll call "negative POV". The best example would be this title. Liancourt Rocks is neutral, as you say. Korea claims it. Japan claims it. But who owns it? S. Korea. And what does Japan want? A disputed status. "Liancourt Rocks" is thus slightly more JPOV than it is KPOV b/c it indirectly challenges S. Korea's legitimacy in its control & b/c all Japan wants is a disputed status (which Liancourt Rocks indicates)"

First of all - quote: "who owns it? S Korea". S Korea might be sitting on it, rightly or wrongly, but sitting on something doesn't indicate ownership. Korea thinks it owns it, Japan thinks it owns it, and that's why it's disputed. Simple really.

Secondly: "all Japan wants is a disputed status". I would have thought that Japan would rather it be an undisputed part of Japan, since the Japanese view is that the islands are Japanese.

So to summarise, I think the whole comment is rather absurd. Phonemonkey 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That S. Korea doesn't own it while it has military forces there is JPOV. You can't say "nobody owns it" Right? (again, a classic example of the negative POV - to indicate a disputed status is JPOV to begin with & "nobody owns it" = disputed) S. Korea has military on it, S. Korea owns/occupies/controls/physical presence whatever etc. To go further, within the limits of the intro (which is to remain as a summary) is inevitably going to result in POV b/c there is not enough space for the two opposing arguments to neutralize net gains of the other. And that Japan doesn't view this as undisputed b/c the island is Japanese is incorrect too. I've read an article (now it's expired but the link is still in the archives, the one about how "Dokdo" is victory for the Korean side--> caused retaliation from Wikipedians which resulted in the move to Liancourt Rocks - the last move) that stated that. It's unrealistic to approach the island that way when S. Korea has troops on the island & I know Japan isn't that unreasonable. (Wikimachine 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Another set of interesting comments from Wikimachine. "That S. Korea doesn't own it while it has military forces there is JPOV." You're stating the obvious: to say "S Korea doesn't own it" is POV as much as to say "Japan doesn't own it" is POV. It has nothing to do with the fact that the statement "S Korea owns it because it has military forces there", which seems to be your position, is just plain silly.

Quote: "And that Japan doesn't view this as undisputed b/c the island is Japanese is incorrect too" - either Wikimachine is making a completely farcical statement here (it is absurd to suggest that Japan, or anyone for that matter, views this as undisputed) or he has laid on too many negatives in a sentence and got muddled. The fact that Japan sees this as a dispute and the statement "all Japan wants is a disputed status" is a million miles apart. Phonemonkey 19:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Even the scholar who is supporting the insistence of South Korea is critical to the attitude of present South Korea. p23

Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.

His "obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably" indiccate charter of the United Nations Article 2.

International Law needs agreement. Sovereignty will be unsettled with protests by anothercountry even if it one-sidedly occupies it. South Korea is not a subject but an object about dispute. South Korea cannot decide whether there is a dispute. It is decided by the presence of the protest of other countries. A present article is not writing negative information for South Korea like this. I will clarify one by one, and correct for NPOV. --Opp2 01:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is specific to Korea's attitude toward the dispute, it's not responsive at allto what I've said. And I don't care what the UN Article 2 or the Geneva Convention says. What you derive from that UN stuff is Original Research. (Wikimachine 02:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

A comment of clarification, Wikimachine--your high school policy debate team might view possession as important, but internationally it intentionally isn't--otherwise, international law would favour war over peace. If you disagree, I might suggest that it doesn't matter which is reality--we aren't here to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims. We can just neutrally say that both claim it, a brief word on their position, and move on. Clearly Japan's position is not that it's simply disputed, but that they unambiguously own it, and that they've been kind enough not to knock the "guests" off their rocks. Slanting the article either way is where we get into pov issues. --Cheers, Komdori 13:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, policy debate is not limited to high school. It's also for college. And we read real policy literature - i.e. biopolitics, hegemony, etc. And it's not that international law favors peace over war. Also we read philosophy too (often tied to politics) - i.e. reality construction. I'll reply to your last part later. (Wikimachine 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Overall you not been responsive to my assertion that you don't need to question possession when something is possessed. I don't know where you want to go with the argument that possession is not important - b/c only relevant scenario you list is occupation of Afghanistan - and that is temporary & humanitarian occupation. If you want to say that possession has nothing to do with national sovereignty then you're either making up craps to waste my time & energy & divert my attention or you're just completely ignorant of the current day reality - simply if Japan were to send a boat near Dokdo, Korea would fire warning shots against it - as it happened before - and that's simple as that & that's as important as it'll ever get. Again, I don't know what you mean by importance of possession. (Wikimachine 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

It's crystal clear. The issue of sovereignty has nothing to do with which country has troops on the island. Even the Korean government isn't claiming that "the reason why the islets are Korean is because Korean troops are there". Oh, and you seem to have conveniently forgotten the original topic of discussion - whether or not Japan views the islets as unambiguousy Japanese, as opposed to somehow preferring the current disputed status. Phonemonkey 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was not original - the original was whether we should write the intro lead sentence as "claimed by korea & japan & then controlled by korea". And yes sovereignty does have to do with which country has troops on the island (but only for complete & possessive occupation - don't bring up the temporary allied occupation stuffs from world war ii and afghanistan). If you don't control it, what are you going to do? Also I think what you say about Japan views the islets as unambiguously Japanese is correct and incorrect - first, that is the type of stance/attitude that the Japanese government wants to take (that's why they register/administer the island & stuffs) & some Japanese (not all) might think that the island should belong to Japan, but since Korea has troops on the island Japan can't do stuffs at the real level & constantly tries to get at the international court. But Phonemonkey, you're truly off the topic. (Wikimachine 01:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

This section is entitled "does Japan want a disputed status?" and as explained earlier it was to seperately respond to your "all Japan wants is disputed status" ((C) Wikimachine 2007) comment in the original discussion about the intro. So no, you started this topic - whether Japan's only aim is disputed status against Korea's aim being to unambiguously own the island. Which I have already pointed out that both Japan's and S Korea's positions are equally opposite - that they are the ones who own the island. The other discussion is of course the ridiculous suggestion which you seem to be making, that having troops somewhere somehow forms the basis of a claim. So in your world, Wikimachine, is "illegal occupation" an oxymoron? Phonemonkey 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess your last question is the big thing in nut shell. Well, this is something that's not black or white -there are grey areas. There was never no such a thing as "illegal occupation" - if a country takes over another, then that's it. Now, the international laws try to maintain this order of peace by making invasion into a foreign territory "illegal" within its own bounds if it was made under no threats. Here let me draw the first star dot - if Japan were to send a destroyer to Dokdo, would that be considered invasion into Korean territory? Yes. And here this is the reality - above all the political theories.

Second, "illegal occupation" is almost never anything. Japan occupied Korea. Japan forced the Korean government to "sign" the approval - make it legal, etc. What was legal there? What is illegal or legal differs depending on who defines it. Another example if the genocide at Rwanda (i.e. movie Hotel Rwanda). The US-controlled UN refused to acknowledge the genocide as a genocide, & by the time the word was out it was too late. Or the Jews & Palestinians & their fight over Jerusalem. Who's legal & who's not?

Third, Dokdo is Korean territory & it was from the beginning (this is where all the terra nullius crap comes in b/c Japanese scholars couldn't base their args on historical/archeo evidence --> they turn to international laws - these don't even have to be laws, they could be conventions/declarations). I think it's very hypocritical to defend Japan against illegal occupation when it was pro at it just several decades ago. Even historical evidence supports Korean claims far more than Japanese.

Fourth, just be realistic & don't think too much. What you say sounds ridiculous - "Korea controls Liancourt Rocks but Korea doesn't have administrative rights over it?" Look, if we were to say ppl lived on the islets, Japan can't tax the ppl there while Korea can. Nor can Japan send any maritime survey dudes around Liancourt Rocks. And the Japanese government officials including the governor of Liancourt rocks (again, all these are made up scenarios) can't build his government building on the islets. How more unreal can you get? (Wikimachine 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

• In response to your first question: "if Japan were to send a destroyer to Dokdo, would that be considered invasion into Korean territory? yes. " Well Wikimachine, the answer is obviously "yes" only for those whose position is that the islets are Korean territory, and quite obviously "no" for those whose position is that the islets are Japanese territory, so the point you make is meaningless.

Not really either. That would start a naval battle (maybe not a war) b/w the patrol boats & then Korea would respond w/ its destroyers, etc. Do you seriously think that this is meaningless? (Wikimachine 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

What happens as a result of Japan sending warships to the rocks has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it would be considered an invasion of Korean territory only by those who consider the islets Korean. It astonishes me that I have to spell out such a simple logic. Phonemonkey 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your second point, I'm puzzled because you seem to be arguing against yourself here . "What is illegal or legal differs depending on who defines it." "Or the Jews & Palestinians & their fight over Jerusalem. Who's legal & who's not?" . Exactly, and the reason why these disputes exist is because the world doesn't work by your "sovereignty rests with whichever country happens to have troops there"-rule, and it hasn't for a few hundred years.

No, I can argue against myself within my own framework in that specific instance. Who controls Jerusalem? Israelites. Would it be considered "illegal" for Palestinians to suddenly mobilize a 50,000 strong army & invade Jerusalem? Yes. (Wikimachine 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Those who consider East Jerusalem as Palestinian land will obviously not see an invasion of East Jerusalem by Palestinians as illegal - as you yourself have pointed out merely a few sentences above "what is illegal or legal differs depending on who defines it". Instead of resorting to a desperate claim that you were for some strange reason deliberately arguing against yourself, what about addressing the actual point that the world doesn't work by your "sovereignty rests with whichever country happens to have troops there"-rule? Phonemonkey 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your third point: What on earth are you talking about? Unlike you, I do not mistake this page as a forum to debate the legitimacy of Japan or Korea's claims, so please let me know where I am supposedly "defending Japan against illegal occupation" apart from it being a figment of your imagination.

In other words,the Japanese historians have used terra nullius to say that Japan's claim is legitimate - but since Japan took over Korea, it simply doesn't fit or it's a mere coincidence. (Wikimachine 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You obviously completely missed the first half in my post which said "unlike you, I do not mistake this page as a forum to debate the legitimacy of Japan or Korea's claims", and the second half which was a question "please let me know where I am supposedly "defending Japan against illegal occupation" apart from it being a figment of your imagination"". Well, Wikimachine? Phonemonkey 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• In response to your forth point: again only in your imagination am I saying "Korea controls Liancourt Rocks but Korea doesn't have administrative rights over it". I am not saying it isn't Korean, nor am I saying it is Korean. What I am saying is "Korea controls Liancourt Rocks but that doesn't automatically give Korea sovereign rights over it". If the islets are Korean, it isn't because its troops are there. By your logic, if Holland kicks Korean troops off the rocks then the islets become Dutch. Phonemonkey 12:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrative rights = soverign. If Holland is the only country that has troops on the isle, yes it becomes Dutch (in most cases - plz don't use those partially/temporarily occupy stuff). (Wikimachine 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

No it doesn't. The notion that having troops somewhere is a basis of a claim to sovereignty is absurd. Phonemonkey 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of going further on this. Are you saying that S. Korea is the villain here? They took over the islets by force, and Japan's just trying to be mature & attempting to resolve the issue with cool head & w/o violence? That this is only a temporary occupation that will be fixed immediately by the UN & its economic sanctions? No way. You know you're wrong. (Wikimachine 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Eh? I never said any of that so I haven't the faintest what you are on about. Keep to non-imaginary topics please - the fact that you believe that "sovereignty is determined on the basis of which country has troops there", and that I believe it's utter rubbish. Phonemonkey 20:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you do. The scenario I described above is the only one that I can think of that would meet your definition that control of territory =/= legitimate. But sorry, S. Korea =/= axis of evil. (Wikimachine 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Japanse contradiction and terra nullius theory

<Insistence of Japanese Government>

The measures to incorporate Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, through the Cabinet decision and notification by Shimane Prefecture reaffirmed the intention of the Japanese government to claim territorial rights as a modern nation over Takeshima. There were no indications that Japan did not hold territorial rights prior to that, nor were there any counter claims by any other country of territorial rights over Takeshima. In addition, the incorporation of Takeshima was reported in the newspapers and was not undertaken secretly, hence it can be seen to have been implemented validly.

<Insistences of Japanese scholars of International Law>

• Prof. Matsusumi(Hachiman Univ ronsyu p107-108, 1962)

If it was not terra nullius but a territory in Japan from long ago, the requirement for the territory acquisition (title by occupation: annotation by Matsusumi) by modern International Law did not have to be filled. Incorporation into Shimane Prefecture might be evidence that Japanese Government admitted Takeshima as terra nullius.(無主の土地でなく日本古来の領土の一部であるという立場に立つ限り、日本政府は第二の点であるところの「近代国際法により必要とされる領土取得の（先占）要件を国家行為を以て充足する」必要はなかった筈である。にも拘わらず1905年（明治38年）2月22日....竹島の領土編入の意志を殊更に島根県告示を以て公示したのは日本政府自身当時竹島を「無主の土地」と認めていた証拠であろう。)

• Prof. Minagawa(Kokusai hougaku no syomondai p363, 1963)

Acient title was acquired by Japan's discovering in the 17th century, and using it exclusively realistically. This title was replaced for firm title by the incorporation in 1905.(日本はすぐに十七世紀はじめ竹島を発見し、それを現実的専用の対象とすることによって原始的権原を有していたのであり、それは 1905年同島の正式な領土編入により確定的権原に代替された.....)

• Prof. Daijyudo(Kokusaiho gaiko zashi p143, March 1963 and Ryodokisokuno kokusaiho p143, 1998 )

The incorporation in 1905 and the effective control afterwards are enough to change title thought that Japan effectively acquired in accordance with International Law in the 17th century for the modern title.(日本政府による明治38年の領土編入措置と、それに続く国家機能の継続した発現は、十七世紀に、当時の国際法にもほぼ合致して有効に設定されたと思われる日本の権原を、現代的な要請に応じて十分に取替えるものであった。)

• Prof. Serita (Nihon no Ryodo p153, 2002)

Japanese Government doesn't admit the incorporation as the occupation title of terra nullius. Japan insist that if it treats as a Japanese territory at that time and another country doesn't object to it, it is enough to acquisition because International Law doesn't apply before opening the country to the world.(日本政府はこの領土編入行為を無主地に対する先占行為とは認めておらず、この点に関する日本の主張は開国以前の日本には国際法の適用はないので、当時にあっては、実際に日本で日本の領土と考え、日本の領土として扱い、他国がそれを争わなければ、それで領有するのは十分であったと認められるというものである。)

<Outline of thesis by Prof. Park who is a Korean scholar (Kokusaiho gaiko zasshi 2006)>

The insistence on two territorial titles (historical title, title by occupation) like Japan seems like contradiction. In this thesis, the insistence of Japan is examined. That is, Japan should select one title or two titles can be united. And I examine which title is appropriate if Japan selects one title.

1.Contradiction theory of historical title and occupation title

The author classified the insistence of a Japanese scholar and Japanese Government as follows.

• Title by occupation theory (Prof. Matsusumi's thesis in 1962, Prof. Minagawa's thesis in 1963)
• Historical title theory (Japanese Government, Prof. Daijyudo's thesis in 1966)

However, the insistence of Japanese Government is assumed to be a coexisting theory. Prof. Park is not judging whether Daijyudo’s thesis is a contradiction theory or a coexisting theory to be clear.

2.Coexisting theory of historical title and title by occupation

The insistence of Japanese Government is thought to be a coexisting theory. Daijyudo’s thesis is thought to be a coexisting theory. International Law did not request the reconfirmation of the will to own territory against the country which had become the member of the international society on the way. However, International Law is not prohibiting it. It is logically possible to strengthen her title by additional action same as title by occupation. A logically possible thing and actual execution are other questions. Therefore, Japanese title by occupation cases should be verified.

3.Analysis of Japanese title by occupation cases

The Japanese process of title by occupation is as follows. Geographic knowledge is acquired first. Secondarily, the ownership of the island is confirmed. Finally, if the occupation by another country is not confirmed, it is incorporated. However, the civilian's activity might be earlier than the acquisition of geographic knowledge by government. It is only two cases that Japan notified in seven cases. The relation to Senkaku Islands in the Sino-Japanese War is paid to attention in Korea.

4.Comparison with Takeshima's incorporation

There is no big difference between Takeshima's incorporation and other Japanse title by occupation cases. In Takeshima's incorporation, the governmental intention of reinforced Japanese historical title is not felt. Japanese coexisting theory is likely not to approve as a substance act though the theory is logically possible.

5.Summary

Japan should insist on title by occupation about Takeshima because there is no difference with other title by occupation cases. However, Japanese government will not do it. Korea should present the historical evidences when Japan insists on historical title. Korea should prove that Takeshima is not terra nullius before 1905 when Japan insists on title by occupation. After all, it is likely to have to be based on modern International Law like title by occupation or the effective control title, etc. It is difficult to find the standard of the historical title in East Asia at that time.

When the opinion of Prof. Pak and Prof. Serita's opinion are added to Prof. Pak's classification, it is as follows.

• It is contradiction, and Japan should select title by occupation.

Prof. Matusumi, (Prof. Minagawa), (Prof. Daijyudo)

• Japan should select title by occupation though it is not contradiction.

Prof. Park

• There is no problem in a present Japanese insistence.

Japanese government, (Prof. Daijyudo), Prof. Serizawa

():Interpretation by Prof. Park.

Even the person who doesn't know International Law will understand by there are various interpretations. There are neither an established theory nor a judicial precedent about the application of International Law to the country before International Law is received. There is not a decided form to succeed to from history title to title of International Law either. Therefore, a lot of theories exist. It is only Prof. Matsusumi to conclude title by occupation of terra nullius.

<The description of a present article>
"Opening"

• Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

"The Joseon and Edo Period"

• This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

"Other Maps and records"

• In any case, the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void.

These descriptions are KPOV in complete. I do not demand to erase these KPOV descriptions(contradiction). However, I demand the following corrections for NPOV.

• It should be described clearly that it is an interpretation by South Korea.
• The rebuttal of Japan against this contradiction theory should be described.
• The following contradictions of the South Korea's insistence are pointed out as "contradiction" cleary.

• South Korea is interpreting Don 'guk yeoji seungnam as the record that sees Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo now. However, a Chosun government is interpreting it as a record that saw Ulleungdo from the peninsula in 1694.
• The South Korea government is insisting that Ahn's activity is effective now. However, Chosun government answered to Japan that he is unrelated to a Chosun government in 1696. Moreover, Chosun government answered that Ahn's petition in the Tottori clan is his lie.

--Opp2 02:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those evidences. It may have been my fault, but I did not see these until now. (Wikimachine 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Opp, even before the second Anyongbok incident of 1696, Japan admitted in their own documents both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were not territories of Japan.

This was discussed between Tottori and the Shogunate (Bafuku) in 1695. The documents are recorded here. This proves that Japanese claims that the Murakawa's and the Oya's were not granted fuedal tenure as they assert. The documents are here.

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

The Korean government's official publication on Dokdo also confirms this.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/gov-doc1.jpg

In conclusion, Japan did not consider neither Takeshima (Ulleungdo) nor Matsushima as Japanese territory during the 17th Century.

Opp, please show one map or document that shows Japan's territorial acquistion of Matsushima prior to 1905. Here are about 30 maps of Japan that show Dokdo was not part of Japan before 1905 and thus their historical claim is a sham.

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

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

Misplaced Pages, why do you ignore my requests to have your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 corrected? I've given you the correct document which is supported by other publications..

The Korean government's official publication on Dokdo also confirms what I've been saying. What kind of evidence do you consider worthy of citation to correct this. Some of the citations I've used are the same sources you've used on other hisotrical matters (ie Shin Yong Ha)

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/gov-doc2.jpgClownface 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not you know Oki to be a direct control territory? Do you understand a Japanese political system at that time? To begin with, it is not confirmed that the Shogunate and the Tottori feudal lord accepted Ahn's request. Why do you change the topic? Present subject is Chosun's official final answer to Japan about Ahn. She denied Ahn's activity.--Opp2 16:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, do not worry about. Because you did not know. However, the log about one half year ago is here. I think that this "Wikimachine" is different from a present "Wikimachine". I think that it is a different person though ID is quite the same. Yes, you didnot know that at all.--Opp2 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm the same person. Actually, most of what that says is included somewhere in the article - except that the first several quotes explain how the incorporation could have been under terra nullius. That could be added, but I'm not sure if the translation of yours is accurate. Also, just one sentence doesn't do us any good. And we need the book's or journal's title & then the chapter title as well. (Wikimachine 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Include? first several quotes? Which concrete quotation and article?　The quotation is all the same as last time. The title of the book has already been written. Is the one sentence bad?　Is such a rule in wikipedelia?　And, most of the sentence is quoted by Prof. park and his thesis has already been presented.

--Opp2 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
amended bill
"Opening"

• Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905 and peaceful effective control after that.

"The Joseon and Edo Period"

• This is a contradiction of the terra nullius policy adopted later by Shimane Prefecture in 1904 (noted below).

"Other Maps and records"

• Though Japanese government hasn't claimed as acquisition of terra nullius, some Korean scholers are pointing out that the previously-held claim of terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument: if the islands had been Japanese territory since 1618, the terra nullius policy would have been incorrect, while if the terra nullius policy had been right, the Japanese claim of historical ownership over the islets would be void. However, Japanese scholars are claiming that it is not contradiction because International Law and the concept of terra nullius is not applied to the state which closes the country and International Law is not prohibiting the re-incorporation of her territory.

I want the opinion and indication about the grammar.--Opp2 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go to WP:JP to ask someone there to back you up on the translations. (Wikimachine 03:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Why do not you admit your lie or mistake?--Opp2 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, what your proposing is a confusing mishmash of legal terms. I don't even understand what you've written.

Peaceful Occupation after that!!?? Is that a joke Opp2.

First the Japanese Navy surveyed Dokdo for installation of watchtowers two months before they annexed the island.

Here is the map by the warship Tsushima drawn by Vice Commander Yamanaka.

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

Regarding 17th Century "management" Opp, you say Matsushima was part of Oki Province at this time? Well, Opp Japanese maps of this era say otherwise.

First a map of Oki Prefecture around 1660, No Matsushima.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-oki-map.jpg

Next a national map of Japan from 1691. Oki is in the box.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ishikawa-ryusen-1694.jpg

Next another Japanese national map from 1654. Again Oki island is in the box. It is clear Oki Island is the northwest boundary in all of these maps.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1654-Japanese-map-border.jpg

If wiki states "Japanese cite 17th Century activity as basis for historical claim.." they should mention no Japanese maps of this era show either Takeshima (Ulleungdo) or Matsushima (Dokdo) as part of any Japanese Prefecture or on national maps of Japan. Clownface 04:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Peaceful effective control" is an insistence of Japan. It is described clearly as the Japanese claim. Is the following sentences added as a Korean claim?　”In South Korea, there is no evidence of the effective control. There is not specific evidence without doubt that it shows that 石島 is Liancourt Rocks either." Why do not you understand the subject always? Do not tell an unrelated story to this part here. --Opp2 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten important information. Japanese Government never says that they acquired terra nullius. Japanese acquisition terra nullius in 1905 is an interpretation by some Korean scholars. Therefore, my amendment bill was retouched again. See above.--Opp2 06:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you are only presenting scholars interpretation of what they feel were Japan's grounds for annexing Takeshima.

However, Japanese historical records state Japan's "so-called" basis for including Takeshima they continually cite the island as being "uninhabited" and make no reference at all to historical grounds. Terra nullius mean's literally no-mans land or having no people although it still lacks clear codification to this day.

Let me give you an example. Nakai Yozaburo describes his conversation with various Japanese Ministry officials such asAdmiral Kimotsuki regarding Liancourt Rocks.

"...As I thought that the island was Korean territory attached to Ullungdo, I went to the capital trying to submit a request to the Residency-General. But, as suggested by Fishery Bureau Director Maki Bokushin, I came to question Korea's ownership of Takeshima. And at the end of my investigation with the matter, I convinced myself that this island was absolutely ownerless through the conclusion by the then Hydrographic Director Admiral Kimotsuki. Accordingly, I submitted an application through the Home Ministry to the three Ministers of Home Ministry , Foreign Ministry and Agriculture. Commerce Ministry for incorporation of this island into Japanese territory and for its lease tome. The Home Ministry authorities had an opinion that the gains would be extremely small while the situation would become grave if the acquisition of a barren islet suspected of being Korean territory at this point of time would amplify the suspicions of various foreign countries that Japan has an ambition to annex Korea. Thus, my petition was rejected..."

Admiral Kimotsuki was instrumental in the annexation of Dokdo. The minuscule announcement Shimane made on the second page of a local newspaper also shows that Japan did not incorporate Takehima on historical grounds. The article describes these rocks as first un-named. If indeed Takeshima was Japan's from ancient times they would have at least mentioned the rocks' names when they "announced" the inclusion.

The reason Japan tries now tries to deny their terra nullius claim is because evidence that Koreans were cognizant of the island before the Japanese seized it has become known. ie (the logbook of the Niitaka and Black Dragon Fishing Manual.

From what data exists, Japan annexed Dokdo on the basis they said the island was ownerless (terra-nullius) Please show original evidence (docs) that Japan annexed Dokdo on the historical grounds. Otherwise what makes the Japanese translation any better than the Korean? Clownface 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Original Reserch. Why do not you understand the subject always?----Opp2 10:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the source of Nakai Yozaburo's diary is not "original research" at all.

The source of Nakai's diary was written by Kazuo Hori a Japanese man in a published article called "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905" in 1997 from the Korean Observer. All the sources of his information are cited at the end of the article.

Kazuo Hori's published article can be seen on this page.

http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm

The quote I mentioned above is on page 18 of Kazuo Hori's well-researched article from the link above. Again from this data it is quite clear the Japanese either believed Liancourt Rocks were Korean (Home Ministry) or the island was ownerless (terra nullius) Admiral Kimotsuki of the Imperial Navy's Hydrographic Dept. He was the man who was the driving force behind Japan's incorporation of Liancourt and was the one who ordered a military survey of the island and a report from the warship Tsushima in November 1904.

Again Japanese Admiral Kimotsuki stressed to Nakai Yozaburo that Liancourt was "ownerless" (terra nullius)and stated that Liancourt Rocks was "completely ownerless" That was the basis of Japan's annexation of Dokdo NOT historical ownership.

Mark Lovmo also has the article published on his website.

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html

Now I've given historical proof Japan annexed Dokdo on terra nullius Opp. Can you give evidence of incorporation on the basis of historical title?

Just because information goes against your agenda Opp doesn't give you the right to label it "original research" Clownface 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hori is not a scholar of International Law. Why do not you understand the subject always? --Opp2 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

administration of liancourt

I'm going to remove the "administration" section at the top of the page.

dictionary.com's definition of "administer" is "to manage, have executive charge of"

Adding that Japan also administers the islands is biased in that your taking advantage of the literal meaning that "oh Japan also does some paperwork about the islets in their government".

Does Japan control the islets? Do articles explicitly mention that the islets are administered by Japan? it doesn't. Not to mention that this article doesn't even mention the word "Liancourt Rocks".

it says that "the islets are an administative part of Ullung Island, North Kyongsang province, under the control of the Department of Ocean and Fisheries" No mention of Japan administering the islets, only claiming them, which is true. Good friend100 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true. The article should explain that. (Wikimachine 22:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, I don't know about the removal - it's understood that Korea controls the island but doesn't "administration" mean paperwork in that case? (Wikimachine 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Let's go for an RFC. (Wikimachine 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

No article says that Japan administers the islets. I remember that JPOV editors used the paperwork as an excuse to say that Japan administers the islets. There are no articles I can find that say Japan administers the island. Its always a variant of "Korea administers the islets and Japan claims them". Good friend100 23:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

All right. By the way, welcome back - in Japanese that's pronounced as "okairinasai" or something (watched some anime). (Wikimachine 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

In third party's sources, South Korea's oneside-occupation also is not using "administration". If administration is used, South Korea is ineligible too. Opp2 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine, its not about the "paperwork" that I'm arguing about. The "paperwork" that one of the JPOV editors mentioned was their excuse for saying that Japan administers the islets.

To the anon editor, I mentioned a couple of third party sources at my comment above. Good friend100 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo and Time sight cannot see by error. Dictionary.com is not about liancourt. What do you say?--Opp2 06:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming administrative righs is not the same as actual administration. Phonemonkey 13:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that South Korea administers the islands and Japan doesn't. Japan simply claims it. Good friend100 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're dealing with a bit of a confusion with language here. As I mention in the below section, the info box is to discuss how the relative countries administer the place (that is, how they categorize it for the sake of administration). It is not an evaluation of whether or not they have some philosophical "right" to do so. —LactoseTI 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not basing it off of "who is right and who is wrong". Its a fact that South Korea physically administers the islets. Japan doesn't. They only claim it and classify it into their appropiate prefecture. Classifying doesn't mean administrating. Good friend100 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. From Japan's perspective, Japan is the only entity who legitimately administers it as part of the prefecture as described, with Korea "just claiming" it. The box is describing the facts objectively--how both countries classify it as part of (administrative) regions. —LactoseTI 19:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's Japanese government's perspective (not even all Japanese think that way anyways) & that's still separate from how we're going to approach the administer issue here b/c all that matters is who administers the islets now? (different from the equivalent of register, which is purely paperworks.) (Wikimachine 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

This is a point of view issue; it depends who you ask. The government of Japan classifies it for the purposes of administration as part of Shimane Prefecture. The government of South Korea classifies it for the purposes of administration as part of Ulleung County. This is the reason for that section of the infobox template; I am not certain of any reason for someone to want to remove this factual information except to "side" with one group. —LactoseTI 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you say comparison of different viewpoints in itself is a matter of viewpoint (perspective), then I've got nothing else to say. Anybody can specify & attack a deeper & more fundamental flaw in another's reasoning. (Wikimachine 03:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

RFC

Template:RFChist

Dispute on whether to include Japan's administration data over Liancourt Rocks when it's purely paperwork. (22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs)
Japanese paperwork does not amount to administration at all.

Collins Cobuild English dictionary defines "administration" as: The range of activities connected with organizing and supervising an organization or institution works.

Japanese paperwork is not supervision over the actual activities on Takeshima and can't be seen as any form of administration at all. Japan just maintains these activities as a flimsy "legal basis" to keep their claim alive.

Drop Japan's "admin" infoClownface 04:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Both S Korea and Japan claim administrative rights over the rocks, but currently it is S Korea which administers the islands. There is no need t delete the entire "administration" section, as Goodfriend100 seems to be suggesting - as long as the fact above is made clear, there is no need to delete any administrative data. Phonemonkey 13:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Then is it appropiate to include only South Korea in the section? What I'm trying to do is a fact. Good friend100 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only including S Korea in that section would certainly reflect reality better than what we have now; however I think it is important for the sake of NPOV to leave Japan's claim to administrative rights over it on one form or another. I'm not sure how though, I have just tried tampering with the infobox and miserably failed. Phonemonkey 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Phonemonkey, I just edited the article's beginning paragraph. I still don't get why we should not delete the section. Japan certainly does not administer the islets and adding it to the section is simply another way for JPOV editors to make this article lean towards Japan. Good friend100 15:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I'm happy to have that section deleted, it's obviously more trouble than it is worth. Phonemonkey 15:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the information about the info box template (how it was designed). The information there is not asserting what is right or wrong, but providing information about how the relative countries classify the island. In other words, how they administer it (whether or not they have the "right" to do so). Removing it because you think one country's claim is stronger than another is simply censoring useful and valid information. —LactoseTI 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it not appropriate to remove Japanese administrative information, since it is in dispute. For NPOV sake, it should be kept. Who controls is a different matter from that who obtains it legitimately. --Aphaia 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And thats your excuse Lactose. That "how the countries classify the islets". By your logic we should add that China and Russia administers them since they classify them too. Did you read my previous post? Its simply by your own logic that you think it should be up there. No media or other articles say that Japan administers the islets with Korea.

I'm suggesting that we just remove the whole section. Good friend100 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think you're missing something with the language. Russia and China do not classify them as parts of Russia or China. They have no administration categorization, and so aren't included in the box. Removing the box would be simply censorship of information you didn't like. Too bad for the student writing a report... —LactoseTI 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What information sources are considered reputable?

A number of times of requested a change to inaccuracies on this page. What sources does Misplaced Pages accept as credible? I hear the term "original research" a lot here what does this mean and what does it matter?

Misplaced Pages, Please clarify what information you need to amend your incorrect translation of Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki and I will provide them for you. Clownface 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you asked. For the definition of original research please refer to Misplaced Pages:No original research, and as for what sources are acceptable please see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Phonemonkey 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Asked translations

^ (Japanese) "朝鮮時代の地誌では、島嶼を記録する場合は、その海島を所管する群県の所在地からの方向と、陸地からの距離が明記される決まりになっていた。(When the Korean topography records in the Joseon dynasty described islands, it was regulated to write the direction from the local government and the distance from the land.) See . 竹島は日韓どちらのものか by Prof. Shimojyo.

The link is http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/chirisi.html, it says

• the content is based on two books by Shimojo Masao?, "日韓・歴史克服への道 展転社 / 竹島は日韓どちらのものか　文春新書 / いずれも下條正男著を参考にしました"
• the author of this webpage doesn't seem to be identical with Mr. Shimojo. And it is a summary rather than quotes. So I think this webpage cannot be attributed to Mr. Shimojo.
• Since it cites an original research by an anon webmaster, it doesn't meet our Misplaced Pages criteria as "reliable source". Regardless if it is true, I think this part should be replaced with the proper cited sources, perhaps including Mr. Shimojo's. Since I think it problematic to be cited here, I'm not interested in its translation. Sorry.--Aphaia 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The original of ”竹島は日韓どちらのものか” is as follows. p163-165

州、府、郡、県の地方官庁では、「規式」に準拠して資料が集められたわけだが、これは鬱陵島のような島嶼の場合でも同じであった。例えば「慶尚道地理志」では、島嶼の「規式」は次ぎのようなものであった。

諸島は、陸地よりも相去る水路の息数。及び島中、前に在りて人民の接居、農作の有無。

これによると、「諸島」が地誌に記載されるときには、陸地からの距離を明記することが求められた。

（中略：各種地誌の記載例の検証）

したがって、「世宗実録地理志」や「東国興地勝覧」の「蔚珍県条」で「県の正東の海中に在り」とあるのは、鬱陵島や于山島が管轄する蔚珍県の東の海中にある事実を示すもので、「風日晴明なれば即ち望み見るべし」というのは、蔚珍県（陸地）から鬱陵島までは「見える」距離にあることを示しているわけである。

I think writing this as the quotation to be too long. --Opp2 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

beginning paragraph

I don't see anything wrong with my edit.

Liancourt Rocks are a group of disputed islets in the Sea of Japan. Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan. In Japan, they are known as Takeshima (たけしま, 竹島, Bamboo islands) and in South Korea they are known as Dokdo (독도, 獨島). South Korea currently occupies the otherwise essentially uninhabited islands, an action that continues to draw official protests from Japan. The name "Liancourt Rocks" comes from the French whaling ship Liancourt which charted the islets in 1849.
South Korea claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records, as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905. Today, South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima, in Oki District, Shimane Prefecture. Good friend100 18:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with most of the above. It's only the second half of this sentence which is unnecessary - "Both South Korea and Japan claim the islets, however they are administrated by South Korea and claimed by Japan." The fact that Japan claims the islets are mentioned twice in the same sentence, and the fact that S Korea currently administers the islets is already in the intro. Phonemonkey 19:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the current version nor do I see the need for your edit. Again, Phonemonkey, you ask why not? I ask why yes. (Wikimachine 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

I don't agree at all. Becouse "administrate" has already been discussed. Sources of time and yahoo that you presented above cannot be seen. I think it is useless even if the same thing is written twice looks like your proposal. --Opp2 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No way, RV

I WILL NOT TOLERATE that "consensus" that you Opp2 made up - if you want the change, do it legitimately - DONT USE ANON ACCOUNTS to slip in changes, & then say "CONSENSUS". OR ELSE I WILL USE ARBITRATION & REPORT TO WP:SOCK FOR REVERT WAR & MANIPULATION OF CONSENSUS. (Wikimachine 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I've had enough with all of you -constantly nagging & slipping in stuffs & bluffing about consensus etc & the worst reasonings & arguments ever that I know even a 3rd grader wuould disagree to but it's just not easy answering them all & it's such a time waste I feel. If you think you can hide behind civility and NPOV with me, you've got it all wrong. (Wikimachine 03:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Upon your 2nd revert, Lactose, I'll begin arbitration. Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists. (Wikimachine 03:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

4. Charles Scanlon South Koreans vent fury at Japan BBC, 18 March 2005
5. , globalsecurity