Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Good friend100 (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 8 January 2008 (→discussion on the infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Article probation

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

Japan This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:53, January 15, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Template:Lame

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Create using the "move procedure"

Requested moves to date

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

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

New rules of conduct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The insistence on Opp2 is POV

See previous discussions Archive 16: !!,Archive 16: please ignore Opp2 and Archive 16: The insistence on Opp2 is POV

A map about treaty of San Francisco

See previous discussion Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16#A map about treaty of San Francisco

I did almost the same as the sentences from the SF treaty. Because hundreds of islands do not show in the SF treaty, they don't show in the map too. "Currently Japanese territory; not mentioned in the SF treaty" doesn't say in the SF treaty. All of extra inducement information is deleted. Then you are the same as saying that the SF treaty should be reverted. Please give logical and constructive opinion.--Opp2 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

you should go over, um, If it wasn't mentioned in the treaty, how can it actually written in the treaty? be real dude. I think you are about to trip over yourself this way o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

See previous discussion Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 16#There was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty Opp2

Consistently poor use of English in this article

This article is written in the English language, and is part of the English Misplaced Pages, but many contributions are made by editors whose knowledge and understanding of that language is imperfect. Would there be any purpose in either of the following changes as a matter of policy: (a) deletion of all sections in Korean or Japanese characters (without regard to nationality or personal position of original editor), as these are not intelligible to English-speakers; although leaving quotations from either language which have been transliterated; and/or (b) correction of grammar and spelling in the article to reflect standard English usage?

Or would either of these be a waste of time given the incessant edit wars in this article? It would be pointless, for example, to correct the syntax of a sentence which is then edit-warred again and again and again on its substance.

Would regular editors like to vote on the adoption of either or both of these policies? Abstention might suggest a lack of willingness to engage with readers who are neither Japanese nor Korean.

And a happy New Year to one and all from Scotland! ariwara (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the correction of the grammar. However, I cannot do. The name and the author and book of quotation should be leaving original language. There is a possibility that the original becomes uncertain if these are translated. --Opp2 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Korea's view on San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Added to the Liancourt Rocks Page is the following interpretation of Korean Legal Scholar's view on the S.F Peace Treaty.

"..The rational interpretation of all the post-war instruments would lead to the conclusion that, unless any express decision provides otherwise, SCAPIN No.677 would take precedence. The Peace Treaty's mere omission of mentioning Tokdo as part of Korea's territory does not amount to the cession of Tokdo to Japan. And a fair interpretation would be that the islands mentioned in Article 2 of the Peace Treaty should be illustrative rather than enumerative given the large number of islands scattered around the Korean Peninsula..."

It comes from page 22 on the following article written by Korean legal expert Hee Kwon Park and Joeong In Rae.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-legal-doc5.pdf

Gettystein deleted it because of no citation, now it's cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added this citation to the contents. --W/mint 10:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

time series about SF treaty

• June 14, 1951: There is no change about article2 after this draft.
• September 8, 1951:Treaty of San Francisco was signed. (Text of treaty(No mention of the Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory and article 2) is fixed.)
• April 28, 1952:Treaty of San Francisco was effective.
• July 26, 1952: The United States protests to ROK based on the fixed text of treaty.

US knew that there was no mention of the Liancourt Rocks in the treaty but protested against ROK. It contradicts the recognition of the United States when bringing the description about ”no mention” at the end of the part. Do not disarrange the time series to emphasize "No mention" for Korean interpretation. In International Law, the text of treaty is fixed by the signature. --Opp2 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is not exceptional to mention only the territory with the change in a legal position in the treaty. The territory of China and Japan did not mention in this treaty. Is there an eccentric scholar who says that Chinese and Japanese territory is unsettled according to this Treaty of Shimonoseki? Please stop induced description.--Opp2 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ICJ issue

Japan has protested since October 1954, and has repeatedly proposed arbitration action at the International Court of Justice, but South Korea has refused.

  but South Korea has refused.

It is too short and JPOV sentence. For NPOV edit, I attched Korea side reason. For NPOV, Need both side opinion. do not delete it. Whatdamn (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Only the fact relevance was being written. The interpretation of Japan was not written. You want to push Only Korean interpretation? I cannot help pointing out the violation of Charter of the United Nations based on scholar's thesis as a Japanese interpretation if you don't erase it. In addition, the explanation of Korean interpretation is too tedious. Keep compact more. --Opp2 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

tediousの基準は何ですか? 日本側主張ばかりして, 韓国側主張を削除して, 非常に短く South Korea has refused と表現することは POVですが... Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Daehanjiji error ==Takeshi The first point to make about the Daehanjiji is that this is by and large a Japanese document. The author's epiloge states "All the records in this book refer to Japanese records and the "Donggukyeojiseungram" which is an old Korean document of Korean geography. This is identical to the position of the Daehanjiji and thus confirms that this publication literally copied Japanese Chosun Sealanes when defining the territorial boundaries of Korea. In the Japanese 1894 and 1899 editions of Chosun Sealanes, Liancourt Rocks (リアンコ－ルト列岩) (Dokdo Island) is postioned at 131 degrees - 55 mins East longitude while Chosun's territory at 124 degrees - 30 mins West and 130 degrees - 35 East longitude. However these positional errors do not mean that Japan excluded Dokdo Island from Chosun territory. The Japanese Navy put Dokdo under Chosun's East seashore in its Hwanyeon Sealanes in 1883 and again in Chosun's Sealanes published after 1894 editions again as under the European name of Liancourt Rocks (リアンコ－ルト列岩) When Japan wrote these sea lane records in 1894 and 1899, what they did was to make identical translations of the English Navy's "China Sea Directory" into Japanese and Korea in turn translated Japanese records to Korean to make the the Daehanjij. Both of the books Shinchan Chosun Chiriji and the Chosun Chiriji also coincide with Japan's Chosun Sealanes with regard to the positions of Korea's territory. It is quite clear that the publishers of the Daehanjiji sourced its informaton from Japanese maps and documents some of which having positional errors. Below is the 1907 edition of the New Daehanjiji. On page 44 regarding North Kyeongsan Province in Volume 2 of its second edition , Usando is introduced as Ulleungdo's sister island and it states "Usando is Southeast of that island Ulleungdo" This record as well as these are clear evidence that Usando does not refer to neither Jukdo Islet nor Gwaneumdo Islet as both of these are in northeastern positions. This also shows Korea did not consider Usando (Dokdo) as outside its territory when writing this publication . http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-daehanjiji.html

1. In 19 century, Korean do not have well technology for latitude, longitude measurement.

2. Daehanjiji copied from Japanese made document. (also copied Japanese document error)

3. However, Contents of Daehanjiji writed about Usando(Lincourt Rocks)'s existence.

Whatdamn (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research. Your source is POOR(a personal site and personal interpretation). When the source with reliability is not presented, it will be deleted. In addition, the explanation of Korean interpretation is too tedious. Keep compact more. --Opp2 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

あなたが編集したことを見てください. orがないのか? 例えば '三国時代の独島が于山国の領土ではない' という文章は original research ではないですか? Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, even if it is a mistake, it becomes effective in International Law when the map is accepted by government. Let's study the judicial precedent of Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia vs. Thailand).--Opp2 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

国際法で古地図が証拠能力を持つという話は初耳ですね. 私も研究をしたんですが, 初耳な理論だ. ソースお願いします. 当時 19 世紀, 近代化をしないで, 鎖国政策で西洋文物の流入を国策で阻んだ, 朝鮮人が緯度, 硬度を測定(西洋の技術)する技術を持ったということは不可能で, 著者が確かにしたことのように和本を引き写したと序文に確かに明示しています. それにもかかわらず 'Usando'が鬱陵島の東南の方にあるというのを明示しているので, 大韓支持が違うことはただ緯度硬度だけです. Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit concerning Daehan Jeondo
"Daehan Jeondo" was published by Korean government(Korea's Ministry of Education). Therefore, the reason for your edit is irrelevant. Your edit will be riverted. In addition, "daehanjiji" was given official approval by the Korean government. And The forward of the book was written by Lee Gyu-hwan , who was the director of the editorial office for Korea's Ministry of Education at the time.--Opp2 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Daehanjiji, Daehanjeondo 韓国政府が発行したという証拠を提示してください.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:DaehanJeondo.jpg even 'Daehan jeondo' mentioned Usando's existence.

daehanjiji published by 廣文社. author is 玄采. not goverment.

Your edit concerning Korean mnemonic name (Yanko)
The record that you presented is a diary of warship Amagi. 韓海通漁指針(Kankaitsuryoushisin) is not a diary of warship Amagi. It was printed on January 1, 1903. "Kankaitsuryoushisin" record that "韓人及び本邦漁人これをヤンコと呼び(Korean and Japanese fishermen were calling this Yanko)." The reason for your edit is irrelevant. Your edit will be riverted.--Opp2 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, opp2, you happen to take an aithoritative voice here, why not address clearly to me like this also, so I might be able to understand your edits? You constantly claim that I am Pov-pushing, but You do not address to me clearly. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this your opinion relates to the subject (ICJ, Kankaitsuryoushisin, Daehan Jeondo)? Could you logically explain the relation to the subject? Or, is this a personal attack again?--Opp2 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this isn't a personal atttack, I am asking you to explain your edits without slyly dismissing my reverts as Pov and such... I am not talking about the maps issue, as I am ignoring it for now. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

リアンクルド岩は韓人は独島(Korean called Liancourt Rocks as "Dokdo") Template:Ja By 1904 Japanese Navy Document. Korean called Liancourt Rocks as Not only "Yanko" but also "Dokdo", "Seok-Do", "Usando". so, your opinion is, in that time korean called "Yanko" only.? It is not fact. Whatdamn (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

!

Opp2 likes to say "blatant POV" to my edits and reverts, but honestly, Opp2's edits usually make no sense, incite confusion, or both. Let's see, all I usually do is integrate this " Japanese scholer say" and "Korean scholar claim" into a single and fluid interpretation... Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and I don't really think this "pov balance" and this ridiculous debate table of different interpretations can be acceptable in an encyclopedia. Don't controversial subjects as this usually go by consensus of documents and analysis, since none seem to effectively disprove another? otherwise, any attempt to correctly interpret would breach WP:OR. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't become a reason to press only Korean interpretation and delete Japanese interpretation. Your edit always emphasizes the Korean interpretation. This is POV.--Opp2 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

nah, thats what you think. It really makes no sense to say a Korean interpretation and Japanese interpretation. exactly who are what is it that makes it his or its interpretation? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give this article a rest

I'm not sure how to further proceed with this article. While I appreciate that several of you guys have been struggling hard to work constructively, I don't think the article is actually improving, and the editing is still in a state of perennial slow edit-warring.

Much of this is apparently due to the poor English. Guys, I appreciate your efforts in working in a language that's not your native one (it isn't mine either), and I realise some of you have a good deal of knowledge to contribute, but you must understand that the article has become hardly readable. Please use some restraint in introducing new material if you're not sure of your English. Give it some time to consolidate so that some competent editors can tidy up the existing text so it begins to make some sense.

There are many things that editors with limited English skills can fruitfully do on Misplaced Pages. Negotiating NPOV on a politically sensitive article is really not one of them.

This goes especially to Opp2. You've introduced a hell of a lot of text, some of it knowledgeable, some of it apparently poorly sourced, tendentious and/or OR. The sheer volume and frequency of your edits is preventing this text from consolidating. You evidently have no consensus for the changes you make, but you keep editing insistently in a way that nobody can keep up with.

I'd prefer if we could resolve this on a voluntary basis so we don't need to go down the road into RfC's and Arbcom again. I appeal to Opp2 and other regulars of this page:

• Please stay away from editing the article, voluntarily, for at least two months.
• Give other, outside editors a chance to work on it in the meantime and consolidate it.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please point it out concretely about poorly sourced or OR. Which edit is it? I admit the problem concerning English. However, I can not understand poor source and OR. I want you to point it out concretely if there is a problem. --Opp2 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The point about my proposal was really that I would like these things to be discussed with somebody else, for a change, not with you. Therefore I'll take the answer into a new section below. Please let's keep this section for a discussion of process, not of content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already stopped the edit of the article. Do you allow such edits? Do these edits maintain POV-balance? An inconvenient record for Korean interpretation and Japanese interpretation with source will be excluded, If you do not do anything. You appeal not only me but also other regulars of this page. I am paying attention to your judgment.--Opp2 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some OR problems

As Opp2 has asked for examples of poor sourcing and OR, here's just a few samples from his last few edits. I haven't checked all the earlier material but I suppose the quality will be similar. This is highly problematic.

• -- Source cited didn't establish there was a "controversy" about this.

In a Korean version, it is being written that there was a controversy in Korea (There were a lot of dissenting opinions concerning his map. 이날 한은 홈페이지 게시판에는 수십여 건의 의견이 올라온 가운데 조선시대 김정호가 제작한 대동여지도에 대한 반대 의견이 주를 이뤘다). In addition, it writes like as follows. "In fact, Liancourt Rocks has not been described in his map of 1861 version. Then Japan has made it as the evidence which shows Liancourt Rocks is not a Korea territory.(실제로 김정호가 만든 대동여지도 목판본(1861년)에는 독도가 나와있지 않아 일본이 그동안 독도는 한국 영토가 아니라고 주장하는 근거의 하나로 이용해 왔다)" Were you able to consent?--Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

실제로 김정호가 만든 대동여지도 목판본(1861년)에는 독도가 나와있지 않아 일본이 그동안 독도는 한국 영토가 아니라고 주장하는 근거의 하나로 이용해 왔다.그러나 일본 국회도서관에서 울릉도 동쪽에 `우산(于山)'이라고 표시된 독도가 있는 대동여지도 필사본이 발견되자 목판본을 만들 때 판각 범위를 벗어났기 때문에 어쩔 수 없이 독도가 빠졌다는 분석도 제기되고 있다. Template:Ko

10만원권 대동여지도에는 독도도 함께 표기하기로 했다. 한은은 김정호 목판본(보물 제850호)을 기본으로 하고 필사본 등의 내용을 고려해 디자인하기로 했다고 밝혔다. Template:Ko

Why did not metioned this? Do not omitting sentence by your own will. POV fork? Whatdamn (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• -- Source cited does not establish the Korean government "admitted" anything about the map and its significance.

(See above:In fact, Liancourt Rocks has not been described in his map of 1861 version.) The South Korea government adds Liancourt Rocks because it doesn't write in the map. Is this OR?. To begin with, isn't present article OR? Because it describes wthout secondary source that the island is being drawn though the island is not drawn. Can you see islands other than Ulleungdo?

• -- Only primary sources cited, no secondary sources showing who is actually using these facts as an argument.

• Prof. Funasugi. 『大韓地誌』では、朝鮮の東限は鬱陵島（東経１３０度）としています。現在の竹島（独島）の経度は東経１３１度５２分であることから、朝鮮の東限は１８９９年の時点で、地図、そして文献でも鬱陵島であったことが確認されます。In theDaehanjiji, the east of Korea is made Ullengdo(130 east). Beacuse Liancourt Rocks is 131 52" east, It is understood that the east edge of Korea was Ulleung-do in 1899.
• Prof. Funasugi. 『大韓全図』、『大韓輿地図』はいずれも大韓帝国の学部編輯局が刊行した地図です。（中略）このように、韓国政府が発行した地図に竹島は記されていません。(The Daehan Jeondo is a map that the Korea government issued. Though Usan is drawn, it is jukdo. Takeshima is not drawn in the map that the South Korea government issued.

I think that Prof. Shimojo also was writing in his book too. Is it insufficient still? --Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please point it out like this. Please stop judging OR and poor source before you confirms to me.--Opp2 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not controversy.

first of all, Controversy mean "a lot of discussion and argument about something".

When discussion happen? even in Japan, did not discussed this.

2nd, Daedong Yeojido have 25 different version. Opp2 mentioned 'Daedong Yeojido, Mokpanbon' version.

but, other version of 'Daedong Yeojido'. for example, 'Daedong Yeojido, Pilsabon' mentioned Usando's existence.

Bank of Korea, cross reference from Mokpanbon and Pilsabon map.

独島が存在する筆写本Pilsabonの mapを参照すると明らかにしたので, これは客観的な FACT. これ以上 controversyではないです.

Already done story. no more controversy. Whatdamn (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issue, (Daehanjiji...), i already answered at 'ICJ issue' section. Whatdamn (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide translations for things you quote? Please be aware that many readers here will understand either no word of Korean, or no word of Japanese, or (like me) no word of either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of his quotation: There was an analysis that Dokdo is omited in wood block version at 1861 when a calligraphy-brush version which Usando(Dokdo) was drawn east of Ulleungdo was found in the Japanese National Diet Library. Then, though the Bank of Korea decided to designe based on wood block version, they allow for other versions too.--Opp2 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To Whatdamn, here is a section to understand the point of Fut.Perf for me. Please do in the section below if you make noise any further.--Opp2 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He argues in Japanese that it is not a controversy any longer because it has solved. When his logic is applied, it is necessary to delete the article about XBOX. I can not understand his insistence and the intention of his quotation well.--Opp2 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Section for Whatdamn

Please present your reserch here to one's heart's content. --Opp2 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have not seen the version of the National Diet Library either. I think that there are neither a thesis nor a site which the image of this map was published. --Opp2 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I found the version of the Japanese National Diet Library. See P118 Prof. Funasugi is interpreting this Usando as jukdo(same page).

Daedong Yeojido have 25 different printing version. don't metioned that," daedong yeojido, mokpanbon" is only daedong yeojido. It provoke to confuse.

foreign people Can not read Japanese language pdf file. so it is unclear 'Usando as jukdo'. also this document written by some japan student.(not scholar) and this student's logic is not valid to other. this student author said, 'usando=jukdo' but lack of fact. and lack of reason. Your document is truly 'Original researched'. Whatdamn (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

and i already talked why 'usando=jukdo' theory is impossible. Whatdamn (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The calligraphy-brush version of of the Japanese National Diet Library is here.
• The actual location of islands are here.

I can not think grounds that can deny the Jukdo theory to be presented. It is neither me not nor you that decide it. Prof. funasugi is an aassociate professor at National Universities in Japan(Shimane University). His major is historical geography. Which university is your Funasugi studying as a student?　Please teach me.--Opp2 (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

oh? is he a professor? OK. (my japanese reading skill is not perfect) anyway, can i see his homepage and profile? i want check, your claim is real or not. according to your document, author did not mentioned that he is a professor. Whatdamn (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let's verify whether your Japanese is a cause. You concluded that he is a student. If anything did not write, it is not understood that he is a student. please present the site where it causes your misunderstanding about Prof. Funasugi as a student.--Opp2 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You concluded the he is a student with Bold-faced type. Did you conclude based on what information? Did you blaspheme him though there were neither information nor evidence anything? Did you blaspheme him based on your delusion? Please present the site where it causes your misunderstanding about Prof. Funasugi as a student.--Opp2 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

i already said, according to your document, author did not mentioned that he is a professor. now your turn. Whatdamn (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bro, this map was very roughly sketched. In old times, map making technology was not good. You think ancient Human can measure azimuth, direction, latitude, longtitude, sea distance exactly? It is impossible. nevertheless, Usando depicted as east side of Uleungdo. Your logic is comedy logic. When your logic is applied, Then Hokkaido is not Japan's territory, too. Whatdamn (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your logic, the age is different(17C and 19C), the subject is different(Ahn who is a criminal and a lier(official answer of Chosun government) and Chosun government) and Geographic characteristic is different. After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. And, Misplaced Pages is not a place where it decides which is correct. --Opp2 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahn is lier? It is truly Original research. first of all, give me source. second, Korea goverment did not say Liancourt Rocks sovereignty matter. Don't make Distorition. Your style is "omitting". After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. Whatdamn (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Misplaced Pages is not a place where it decides which is correct. this sentence for you.

your logic as follows, find some 'human error' or something 'error'(in fact, many of are not error). "See! It was not korea's. It was Japan's!" I just curious, Whatever you say, Your logic did not proved Japan occupied Liancourt Rocks, too.Whatdamn (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

so your claim that, "Usando is not Liancourt Rocs. Usando was Jukdo or Gwaneumdo!"

Let's clarify this. Your logic start from "Korean did not know Liancourt Rocks existence for thousands of years."

Let's see this photo, Liancourt Rocks cleary visible in Korea terrtory(in Ulleungdo).

How can Korean did not KNOW this island "existence" for thousands of years? huh? even visible in their territory?

Your logic is failure logic, because start from inaccurate presumption. Whatdamn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This time, is it a record of the 15th century? As for your logic, the age is different (15C, 17C and 19C). After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you.--Opp2 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. It is you :) Whatdamn (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I find some fabrication. He(Ahn) is the stupid people. Even if he does something, a Joseon government is unrelated. 肅宗31卷 23年(1697年2月14日) "於漂風愚民, 設有所作爲, 亦非朝家所知

I don't know Why this sentence interpret like that? It does NOT mean, ahn is stupid person. Who make this fabrication?

Let's see full text.Template:Ko

Whatdamn (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good heavens, Whatdamn, I don't want to be rude, but your English is even poorer than Opp's. What you guys write here for the most part makes no sense at all to an English speaker without a huge amount of effort at guessing what you are trying to say.

Sorry, but you people have no chance making this a readable article, ever. I repeat my request: Please, can both of you, please, just take a break from editing this article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but lemme just put some touches to at least make the article readable. I really haven't contributed information at all; I was editing nonsense and what I thought to be outrageously childish. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahn's guilty was false personation, represented himself to be a government official. Not soverign matter. Korean goverment did not guilty him for soverign matter.

In 1696, 肅宗實錄 record. Template:Ko

則領敦寧尹趾完以爲 龍福私往他國 猥說國事'안용복은 사사로이 다른 나라에 가서 외람되게 나라의 일을 말하였는데'

Ahn did not have right for goverment work, But he represented himself to be a government official.

知事申汝哲曰 龍福之事 雖極痛駭 國家所不能爲之事 渠能爲之 功過足以相掩 不可斷以一罪也. 지사(知事) 신여철(申汝哲)이 말하기를, 안용복의 일은 매우 놀랍기는 하나, 국가에서 못하는 일을 그가 능히 하였으므로 공로와 죄과가 서로 덮을 만하니, 일죄(一罪)로 결단할 수 없겠습니다."

even if he did false personation, Ahn worked for country's official affairs. his achievement exceeds his guilty. Whatdamn (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

yo, it wasn't me, look at opp2 for that... hell I am ignoring that for now to avoid another coflict with our buddy opp2// o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

The history of this article is a disgrace and yet again we see it being raised at ANI. I seriously believe we are better off without the battles that this article provokes. I have therefore deleted it. Perhaps the combatants can seriously consider the impact of their squabbles on the wider project. Spartaz 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how deletion (as opposed to blanking, but that too) was pertinent to anything. I restored the undisputed intro and protected. El_C 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I left a note on your talk page explaining myself. Spartaz 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

You don't delete an article because there was edit warring! The notice in place of the content of this article is unacceptable and astounding that administrators let it happen. Protecting is fine, but someone needs to fix this state of the article and fast. -Theanphibian 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is being discussed at WP:ANI. As a breaching exercise to get some movement here, the deletion has been significantly more successful then I expected. In due course we will undelete the history. Please feel free to join in the discussion at ANI. Spartaz 19:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

direct link: Misplaced Pages:ANI#Liancourt Rocks -Theanphibian 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging stuff back

I temporarily left out some of the uncontroversial factual material about geography etc., simply because while the history was deleted I couldn't rewrite them without breaking GFDL. Now that the history is back (good call, probably) there'd be no problem reinstating those parts bit by bit.

As for the infobox, yes, leaving that out was intentional. The infobox was a perennial source of silly revert-warring over the mere ordering of the Japan- and Korea-related entries. Under these circumstances I thought not having a box at all would be better. These boxes don't serve much of a real purpose anyway, do they. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right! I came to this article a couple of weeks ago as a West European with a lay interest in the subject. And what a horrible mishmash it was, with its computer-translated English, and great chunks of Korean and Japanese that the editors couldn't even be bothered to Romanise. It was obviously going to be impossible ever to edit this into readable English, because the edit-warriors were at it over a dozen times a day, - so there was no prospect it could ever improve. I'm at least relieved, reading the discussion at Misplaced Pages:ANI#Liancourt_Rocks, to see that this conduct is truly exceptional in Misplaced Pages; and I agree that, interesting though this could be as a fuller article, the present stub is better than the unintelligible and illiterate saga it replaced. I take the point that deletion isn't a natural response to edit warring, but desperate cases require desperate remedies. The history replacement allows the original material, some of which is indeed interesting and relevant to be seen; seems good enough. ariwara (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That silly Japan-Korea KOrea- Japan war was annoying, but even if it was disputed, The infobox violates no Misplaced Pages convention. I demand that the infobox be put back. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Practically all the information it provided is given in the article; why therefore restore something that was the cause of a pointless edit-war? BLACKKITE 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have read this first. I restored the infobox only because I, at least, failed to see it changing much. Let me know what is disputed in it, and perhaps we can modify it accordingly, or even remove it entirely. Its value isn't that great, I agree. As for the Geography, Climate and part of the Ecology sections I restored today, let me know if there is anything disputed in these, as well, and we can go from there. Many thanks. El_C 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. As for the box, I certainly have no problem with it, but Korean editors were forever unhappy when the Japanese entries were placed first, and vice versa. Plus, there used to be some silly debates about whether it was fair to characterise as "administration" whatever it is that Japan does with the islands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that so long as we are consistent in having symmetry, there should be few complaints. Also, I noted what we are doing here to the Arbitration Committee, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motions#Liancourt Rocks article probation. El_C 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You underestimate how many things editors actually can and do complain about. ;-) But sure, leave it in for now. Nice thing the arbs reacted this quickly too. A fully voted motion just hours after the issue was raised on ANI is surely a first? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Administration
Japan (Claimed)	South Korea (Occupied)
Shimane Prefecture	North Gyeongsang Province
(Okinoshima Town Oki District, Shimane)	(Ulleung County)
Status
Claimed	Occupied

discussion on the infobox

Yes, I'm not happy about the order in the infobox and other Korean might think so. I always think that changing the info box could prevent editors from making silly warrings on it. I'm not good at making or altering the table, so I just roughly made this.

Both countries name equally are placed on the same line. The order is just on the left and right side. I might miss something but it is my best. And as you see, in the infobox, two options are for the current status. --Appletrees (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably possible to make this change on Template:Infobox Islands. However, it would be technically very challenging and I don't think that people would accept the changes to the box itself. -Theanphibian 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What I keep saying in such situations: Infoboxes are generally not worth the trouble. They add no real information value, and they force editors to condense information to such a degree that makes it extremely difficult to maintain the necessary disclaimers, hedging, sourcing etc. whenever a piece of information is not absolutely straightforward and factual. That's why prose text is generally preferable. There's a reason real, good, traditional encyclopedias are written in prose and not in the form of tabulated data sheets. Infoboxes are a severely over-used feature of Misplaced Pages. If in doubt, leave it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about making an additional infobox only for the disputed territories. In the wikproject Korean film, an editor made a template for only Korean films to insert several original name and translation. Please see this. {{Infobox Film}} vs {{Infobox Korean film}} -Appletrees (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you could do that. But why would you? I seriously don't get it, what's so nice about infoboxes that everybody wants to have them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not worth the trouble. What we have right now is probably good enough. El_C 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean why I would want the infobox instead of letting it go from the page? Well, the table makes the page authentic encyclopedia to me. I don't mind the infobox taken out forever, but some editor said he wants to restore it. It is just optional. I'm not forcing to use the template. --Appletrees (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the nature of your original objection. El_C 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what is my original objection. Please specifically say to me. You restored the old template which has caused consistent edit warrings. Therefore, if majority of editors here want to use the template, I suggest to use the altered template instead. If the table is not worth to keep at the page, then just throw it. --Appletrees (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "Yes, I'm not happy about the order in the infobox and other Korean might think so." Why? El_C 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As Fut.Perf said the above thread, the template has many problems. Japanese government technically doesn't administrates the rocks. And the order could misguides the contents and first impression for readers as if Japan owned the islets and South Korea defied to the situation. For the reasons, I understand why many Korean editors suddenly intervene the article and changed the order. If you think the template is good at this point, that is not true. And I'm supporting for changing the template or not using it.--Appletrees (talk)

What is the definition of the Administeration here? (Also note that both countries also claim this island) --Kingj123 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese editors believe that Japan "administers" it if they include it in their country map, mention it in news channels, etc. Its something that is slightly POV against Korea but it can stay up there. Good friend100 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

@El_C, the reason why some may not like the current setup is because it implies that Japan owns the rocks partly as of now or that Japan has a right to the islets. No one else thinks that Japan has a right to the islets except Japan itself. As for the definition of "administer" there are no sources or articles anywhere that I can find that says "Japan administers the islets, along with Korea". They are all a form of "Korea administers the islets and Japan claims them". I certainly think it is biased. "Administrate" implies that Japan controls the islets, which they don't. Appletree's setup makes it more clear as to what each country thinks it should be and compares them side to side with none of that "whoever-is-on-top-is-better" syndrome. Its a nice suggestion, I like it. Why do you have to be so confronting? I know appletrees has made some poor comments, that doesn't mean he can't make good suggestions. Good friend100 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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