Talk:Liancourt Rocks - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 4 December 2011 (→Visibility: would you please finally tell us why?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:06, 4 December 2011 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (→Visibility: would you please finally tell us why?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liancourt Rocks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Article probation

Suggested Rules of EngagementThis article is under article probation following a decision by the arbitration committee. Any user who disrupts this article is liable to an immediate article ban by any Administrator without warning. To avoid running into trouble you are requested to observe the following rules of engagement at all times

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 eight hours before reverting them (if you must).

No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit. (This does not apply to obvious vandalism).

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. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this.

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.

Tendentious, overlong or nonconstructive repetitive arguing on the talk page is not permitted. Disruptive edits of this kind may be removed by an administrator and persistent offenders are liable to being banned from further contribution to the article.

If you wish to discuss these conditions you should leave a message below or contact an administrator familiar with the history of this article. Currently this includes ?? Fut perf; Spartaz (perhaps) and/or Nihonjoe.

This version was implemented by Spartaz on January 29, 2008.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Citizendium Porting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

East Asia (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Japan: Geography & environment / History Low‑importance

This article 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: 08:54, January 13, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force.

This article is supported by the History task force.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Korea Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.
	This article has been designated as unstable due to recurrent edit wars. Sustainable improvements to this article requires forging a consensus among all good-faith participants.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

North Korean claim for Dokdo in infobox

I ~~don't~~ think it is not needed to describe the North Korean claim of Dokdo. Actually it claims entire South Korea. Japan and South Korea are disputing on the island. I suggest to remove its claim. --Cheol (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

North Korea is a separate country, they have a separate claim on the island. It's no different than if China, Russia, or Barbados had a claim on the islands. The fact that North Korea disputes other places doesn't seem relevant to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We note the ROC claim on Tibet; it doesn't matter that their army has no physical way of getting there. Shii (tock) 05:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked a citation for North Korean claim. And it's contradictory that at the end of the article, it says 'North Korea supports South Korean claim'. Any idea to fix the contradiction? --Cheol (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"According to the KCNA, Dokdo island has been the sacred territory of North Korea since ancient times." http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2011-02/626698.html Shii (tock) 09:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both North and South Korea claim entire Korea to be their territory. NK supporting SK claim should be understood that they consider that Liancourt Rocks are part of Korea, not that they consider the islets are South Korean territory. --Kusunose 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, NK claims entire Korea including Dokdo. Do you think we need to describe the particular fact that is not only claim on islets in the infobox? --Cheol (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In infobox, it states NK claims these islets as a part of North Kyeongsang Province. Now, NK has not have Kyeongsang Province. It belongs to SK. Then we can say NK claims while it recognizes them as a part of current SK territory. --Cheol (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Visibility

Why is this relevant? Maybe on the dispute page but it seems out of place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.80.97 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The only reason it's included seems to be that some agenda-pushing editors were fond of building their own home-made arguments about it, somehow along the implied idea that if you can see island X from country Y, that somehow strengthens country Y's claim to X. Interestingly, none of these agenda-pushing accounts ever bothered to spell out those arguments and their premises themselves (let alone source them); they were all merely busy writing diatribes about visibility as if something of enormous importance were hinging on it, without ever saying what it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy taking out the whole paragraph; the only reason to keep it would be if a reliable source actually used this as an argument in favor of Korea's claim. While that would be an awfully specious argument, if it were reliable (not just a blog post), I suppose a sentence could remain, although perhaps it should be in a different section. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I implemented this change the other day, but it was reverted without any explanation and in breach of the special editing rules on this article today by Ryuch (talk · contribs) . If I don't hear a good argument for this reinstatement of the "visibility" material, I intend to revert it again in a while. Looking at the footnotes: (1) footnote 13 is a dead link, and apparently went to an unreliable web site to begin with. (2) Footnotes 14+15 are from a publication that might be reliable as far as the raw facts are concerned, but we still have no reliably sourced information why and according to what criteria these raw facts would be in any way relevant for us; the text is still presenting them as if visibility was important for something, without saying why. (3) Footnotes 16+17 are entirely WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for further explanation, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I thought you violated the rule enforced at this page. You should ask consensus to delete a large amount of text. Now I hear your more concise arguments. I think those links were not fake and as time goes by links could be broken. Visibility is very frequent arguments in Korea, I think I can find the changed links. Please, be harmonious with me. --Cheol (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to hear more why you think visibility is not relevant to the natural condition of these islets. --Cheol (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, my edit was in fact based on previous consensus in talk, and besides, it was never a revert to begin with. And even if my edit had been a violation of the rule, that didn't justify you violating it in turn – in fact, from what you say now, I understand that you were aware of the rule and broke it knowingly. About the footnotes: nobody claimed the links were "fake". As I said, number 13 may well have been working a few years ago, but there is no indication it was ever a reliable source; footnotes 16+17 are not references at all but merely an editor's personal speculation. If you can find reliable sources making some sort of case about it, then of course we can include it somewhere, although I'd say it shouldn't go into that physical facts section, but directly into some "dispute/arguments"-related section. Because if it is true that any visibility-related argument is specifically a Korean argument, then the very fact that we are mentioning visibility in the geography section could easily be understood as implying that the premises of that Korean argument are valid, i.e. that visibility is in some way a relevant criterion for something – which is very far from obvious indeed.

I asked you to self-revert. Are you refusing to do that? Because if that's the case, I'd have to ask for the rule to be enforced against you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, still now I could not find the consensus you are mentioning. You said your opinion and Qwyrxian agreed upon a part. Can you call it a consensus which was happened for a day? I don't think the order of talk and revert is so strict rule. I fixed the very first broken link and talking to you. I can read the news article in Korean and it's obvious that visibility is reliable fact as I can see the picture and read the text. I don't agreed that's not had not been a reliable source. Right, visibility is a crucial argument for the disputes but observing is a scientific method. It is not only argument. It's same how far they are from Uleung and Oki. The references you said speculations are just summaries of the original sources. --Cheol (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Qwyrxian. I don't think the visibility is an important piece of information. Why should it be mentioned in the article as the islets are only visible on very clear days and not easily seen? And how many days the islets can be visible in a year? If it's only several days, it would be meaningless. Cheol, why do you think the information is needed? Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the visibility is an informative fact. As far as I know, you can see these islets for around 50 days. Korean geography books such as 『세종실록 지리지』,『고려사 지리지』, and 『신동국여지승람』 described the visibility. I am not arguing for claiming for the islets at this point. But the old encyclopediac geography books noted the fact, then why not Misplaced Pages? --Cheol (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

50 days? Citation, please. And are they visible without the aid of binoculars or a telescope? BTW, I don't think asking for opinion at WikiProject Korea only is not fair. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfair to ask opinions anywhere in Misplaced Pages and I will be thankful if you attract other good editors. In fact, I don't think asking at the WikiProject could bring only one-sided opinions. Blaming itself is not fair. At this article, you can find a book titled "Dokdo, you can see at Ulleungdo". In the book, you can see 3~4 times for a month at least. They surveyed 1 year and 6 months. --Cheol (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The linked page is a blog and it is not a reliable source. FYI, you are not on my watchlist, but WikiProject Korea has been. Oda Mari (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't recognize I mentioned a book not a blog? Did you notify to WikiProject Japan? Not? then why not? --Cheol (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a surprise to me to delete the text which was there since being added in September 2008 by this edit in a few days while still the discussion is not settled. I think the deletion is disruptive. --Cheol (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryuch, could you please explain why the information should be in the article? We do not include every random fact found in reliable sources. For example, we don't put things like "This city can be seen from this mountain 150 days a year" or "Building X is visible from the top of Building Y", even if it's sourced. I am also concerned that the book you mention may not meet WP:RS. Who published it, and who wrote it? If it's published by that museum in Ulleungdo, it certainly wouldn't meet WP:RS. If it's published by a branch of the Korean government or one of their psuedo-independent advocacy groups, then it would need to be clearly attributed to that group, and probably not put in the Geography section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree the number of the days of visibility is the only reason to describe. The islets are differ from ordinary buildings in a city. In the sea, the visibility is a significant geographical information. The new book is not the only source about the visibility. Hundreds year ago, geographical books such as 『세종실록 지리지』,『고려사 지리지』, and 『신동국여지승람』noted. The reason why those books noted the visibility is also a good reason to describe. I don't think they were written to push the propaganda. The new book is a study of the days of visibility which can be reproduced by any independent research. --Cheol (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, nobody denies the factual accuracy of the claim that they are visible. That's trivial. But you have again evaded the question: why would visibility matter? What does it matter for? Evidently, your eagerness to have this information included is not simply because it's an interesting little bit of geographical trivia. You, like all those earlier Korean editors here, want to include it because you somehow feel it's related to some argument. Because, to your mind, the visibility somehow strengthens the Korean claims to these islands. You said so above ("visibility is a crucial argument for the disputes"). The same seems to be true for those sources (newspaper articles, blogs etc) you were quoting. They all appear to be trumpeting out this fact with a triumphant tone, as if it was somehow of utmost importance for the arguments argument about national sovereignty.

So, can you now, please, please, do what none of the other edit-warriors could be bothered to do, and finally tell us what that argument is supposed to be?!? If some Koreans believe that visibility amounts to an argument in favour of Korean sovereignty, then why on earth do they think that? What on earth could that connection be? To every non-Korean editor here, this is just totally opaque. It's in fact a completely absurd idea, on the face of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To describe a phenomenon 'Dokdo glory'

In early November and early February, at Ulleungdo you can see these islets and the sun in a straight line. That is called Dokdo glory. I think this is a beautiful scenery worth describing here. What do you think? --Cheol (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Reliable sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's a view from Ulleungdo and it's a tourists attraction of the island, add the information with RS in the Ulleungdo article. Not here. It has nothing to do with the geographical article of Liancourt Rocks. Oda Mari (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories: