Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Appleby (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 24 July 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Takeshima Islands

Blatantly POV duplication of Dokdo, which is currently a disputed article due to the controversial nature of the situation there. There's no need to have multiple articles for the same topic, especially when the articles are almost exactly the same (except for the POV changes). ···日本穣 17:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣 17:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion. --Reuben 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated above. --Zonath 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dokdo. I don't think there is anything in the article worth merging. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dokdo. Article is a complete cut&paste POV fork from that page, and is a poor solution to the content dispute there. Kuru 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dokdo per above. -- Gogo Dodo 00:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. A diff between the two articles (copy protected text of Dokdo, paste into edit box for Takeshima Islands, show changes) makes it pretty clear that this is a pure POV fork, with "Dokdo" changed to "Takeshima Islands" in most instances where it's used, "Takeshima Islands" moved to appear first when both are used, and general POV inserted:

  Added paragraph in intro:

  There have been the problems of their territorial rights(including their naming rights) and fishery rights around it since 1954. Koreans have been very nationalistic to have been plotting to rename "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea". Also they have illegally controlled and administered "Takeshima Islands" since 1954 and been plotting to rename them "Dokto" in spite of Japanese repeated fair demands that if Koreans have any complaints about the sovereignty of Takeshima Islands(while South-Koreans called them "Dokto"), Japan is ready to accept the innternational neutral judgements and Koreans should obey the decisions too. While Japan has been protesting against Korea more than 50 years that south Korea should stop their illegal behaviors and accept the international fair judgements, Koreans have been violating Takeshima Islands.

  Removed paragraph:

  South Korea currently controls the islets and claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century. Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records.

  Replaced with:

  South Koreans illegally have stayed on the islets and claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century and would not admit the truth that there have been no Koreans permitted to live not only on the Takeshima Islands but also on the Ulleung-do from 1403 to 1876 by Korean authority. Besides Japanese territorial claims to Takeshima Islands come from the fact that Japan fairly gains the sovereignty of Takeshima Islands first in 1905. Furthermore Japan has the seventeenth century records concerning the territorial rights of Takeshima Islands. What is most important is that Japan gave only fishing rights around Ullueng-do to Korea but not the other anything in 1696.

  It's still a little early to be closing the AFD as a "speedy redirect", but I'm feeling strongly inclined to do so anyway. I see no reason the two articles should be separate. Zetawoof 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Also, note that Takeshima Island already redirects to Dokdo. Zetawoof 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect, of course. However, I am slightly concerned that the recent vote to move the neutrally-named Liancourt Rocks to the politically-fuelled Dokdo was passed despite intense opposition on the Wikilawyering grounds that the opposition voters found out about the proposal "too late". This content dispute would never have happened if the neutral and mutually-acceptable name had been retained, instead of allowing one side to claim a "victory" for their POV. Suggest a new debate be opened on the naming, perhaps one held centrally rather than on the article's talk page to ensure wide visibility, and that those who participated in the previous debate both before and after the arbitrary deadline be given the chance to have their arguments properly considered. — Haeleth Talk 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for this. This intenese J-K bickering is beginning to wear on my nerves. I find the whole discussion to be more POV-slinging mudfest than a civilised debate. ···日本穣 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• redirect, and strongly oppose another poll on this hot potato. there was a proper poll, properly noticed, and with participation from many neutrals from rfc. after full discussion about commonness and "english"-ness of various names, consistency with articles like Senkaku Islands (which is not titled "Pinnacle Islands"), etc. the result of the rational, impartial poll was 14-0 in favor of the move here. only when some japanese chat site got a whiff of the news did the page get bombarded by countless new japanese accounts, including proven sockpuppets 1 2 3, etc. the move to dokdo was properly done, capitulating to the immature attacks would set a bad precedent, and another poll will surely be plagued by the same, if not more, problems. we should be focusing on fixing embarrassments like Rusk documents and Norimitsu Onishi, resulting from the same group of new accounts. Appleby 17:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)