Talk:Dokdo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Dokdo article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community:  Discussion - Notice board Guidelines:  Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation:  Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: unstable quality , medium priority.
	Korea-related tasks: purge Create North Korea South Korea Korea North Korean Cities South Korea-India relations Districts of Seoul National Institute of Korean Language Wanghusa Garakgukgi Korea YMCA Ji Cheongcheon Battle at Luozigou Battle at Dadianzi Battle of Bongohdong Battle of Samdunja Sampo Waeran Byeongin Yangyo Goguryeo-Wei War Lelang Conquest Xienpei Campaign Guda-guk Galsa-guk Gaema-guk Hangin-guk Chunchong King Taejong Jeamri Jinju fortress Improve North-South relations Sports Tourism Communications North Korean Missile Test (2006) Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Gangpeh Jirisan Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe Korean architecture Gaya confederacy Samhan Goryeo Namsan (Gyeongju) Nangnang nation Korean royal court cuisine Bangjja Calligraphy Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Korean Liberation Army Independence movement Culture of Korea Korean martial arts Korean swords Korean nationalism Korean knife Korean armour (see also Pages needing attention and Stubs) Images North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Dong-A University Pohang Songguk-ri Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery Three Kingdoms of Korea Mongol invasions of Korea Goryeo-Khitan Wars Goguryeo-Sui Wars Military history of Korea List of monarchs of Korea Prehistory of Korea Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: ko:이범석 (1900년) ko:유관순 ko:이봉창 ko:박헌영 ko:김원봉 Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Complete List (edit)

This article is within the scope of the Korea WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Korea and Korea related articles. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	Dokdo is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Oishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents 1 Requested moves to date 2 Naming Dokdo "Takeshima" would be just like naming Seoul "Keijo" (its name during the occupation) 3 Controversy 4 Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country 5 This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue 6 Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media 7 Understanding Wikipedia naming policy 7.1 The name issue (Search results ) 8 Introduction change 9 Takeshima, Shimane 10 Strategic Attack Against Controversial issues 11 Redirection 12 In the current situation section 13 Request page protection 14 Concerning the current version 15 Rename vote 16 Sorry to interupt the renaming vote but... 17 how shameful 18 Japanese government admits that Dokdo is Korean territory 19 Misinterpretation of the Ahn Yong-bok incident part 20 Deletion of description about Ogasawara 21 To Opp2

[edit] 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

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Dokdo "Takeshima" would be just like naming Seoul "Keijo" (its name during the occupation)

The name "Takeshima" means the beginning of colonization and its recent revival perfectly illustrates the return of imperialist movements in Japan.

1. Japan recognized Dokdo as a Korean property during the 1890s.

2. The name "Takeshima" was given during the Japanese occupation of Korea, when Korean culture was outlawed and Koreans were forced to use Japanese names (see Japanese_occupation_of_Korea#Cultural_Imperialsm and Japanese_occupation_of_Korea#Forced_Name_Changes).

3. Furthermore, "Takeshima" means "bamboo island". Officially, "bamboo" resonates with the shapes of the stones of Dokdo, which is absurd for anyone contemplating the islets. On the other hand, knowing how bamboos proliferate step by step, the name perfectly symbolizes the first step of colonization : Dokdo was the very first piece of Korean land conquered by Japan in 1905.

4. No wonder Japanese die hard nationalists longing for the colonial era make a crucial case of Takeshima these days : it is a key symbol of the restoration of imperialism.

5. Calling Dokdo "Takeshima" would be exactly the same as calling Seoul "Keijo" (the name given by the Japanese during their occupation). It's only a little more discreet.

[edit] Controversy

Japan has always renamed each place that they conquered... But before they conquered, they still used the same name...(Meaning Tokdo was Tokdo in Japan before their Imperial Era) Also, Tokdo(Takeishima) belongs to Corea. So I am really confused why the Japanese does this... I wonder if the Japanese would likke it if the world calls Tsushima "Daemado"(Corean for Tsushima)... So it will really be bias if Tokdo is to be called Takeishima... Sincerely Daniel McBeth

--Stephane mot 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Why Koreans change every name to those common in their country

[edit] This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#This discussion page is generally absurd / The name issue

[edit] Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media

For previous discussions on this subject before this time stamp 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC) see Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Mention of this article in the Korean English-language media.

[edit] Understanding Wikipedia naming policy

See Talk:Dokdo/Archive 6#Understanding Wikipedia naming policy for talk on this subject before this time stamp: 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions are subservient to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which is "non-negotiable". As the names Dokdo and Takesima are clearly viewed by a lot of editors to this page as not being neutral, a suitable page name which meets the neutral point of view criteria is Liancourt Rocks. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The voice of common sense. Thank-you Philip. My suggestion was in line with Wikipedia naming policy (most common name amongst English speakers) was taking Dokdo/Takeshima. But arguably Liancourt Rocks is an equally common alternative if we exclude uses specifically aimed at promoting a POV, so is a valid and good alternative. Macgruder 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just your ignorance that you claim that my google search is deceiving. When the Korean name of the island is translated into english, it is either Dokdo OR Tok-do, Tok-islet, etc. They don't mix Dokdo and Tok-... in the same text. Is it clear? Besides, Tok alone has no meaning in contrast to Takeshima in Japanese. With Tok alone it cannot mean anything else than Tok-do in Korean. It may sound strange, but it is true. When you have people around who can speak or read Korean, ask them.

Opposition:[Dokdo] (獨島)독도 -"Dok" means lonesome. I'm Korean. I am offended. Please avoid incorrect assumptions.

It looks like you distrust whatever I say and are so prone to disqualify me from this discussion. I don't know where this impatience comes from. English speaking world is wide. Please don't assume that Dokdo has been always used with Takeshima. It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government. Please read what I wrote again.

By the way, as you said, Liancourt Rocks cannot be used. It is simply not as frequently or commonly used as Dokdo or Takeshima. The same argument is repeating. For the same argument as above, the article has been once named as Liancourt Rocks for a while. But it should not. Should we keep revolving around this endlessly? Ginnre 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop using biased comments to make your points "It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government".

Your Google analysis was totally flawed. You took tok-do / dokdo and ADDED results - this means some pages get counted twice

"They don't mix Dokdo and Tok-... in the same text" Really???

tokdo AND dokto -----> 70,000 pages.

Learn how to use Google correctly. Here again. I did the correct Google count using tok-do OR dokdo etc. This automatically count any page with ANY of the names.

First learn how to use Google (go to the advanced and use the OR section) . This is the search you are looking for:

korea japan islands tok-do OR tok-ddo OR tok-island OR dokdo OR dok-do 104,000

VS

Takeshima korea japan islands about 70,000

These are fairly close, and as the issue is not just decided by a Google search the result is inconclusive.

Anyway, "When the Korean name of the island is translated into english, it is either Dokdo OR Tok-do, Tok-islet, etc." doesn't matter. The etymology of the word is irrelevant. It's what English speakers do use that counts. T and D are totally different to English speakers. But anyway, even when I count both as above the results are similar.

Stop using comments like 'ignorance' etc. All I see is an inability to use Google, misunderstanding of Wikipedia naming policy, anti-Japanese rhetoric and POV arguments.

It's nothing to do with 'impatience' as you say. You haven't yet given a shred of evidence(just misunderstanding of Google) to suggest that Dokdo is significantly more common than Takeshima amongst English speakers (i.e. people whose first language is English or are bilingual) . You want to earn some respect and get listened to, then stick to facts, and stop arguing by emotion. Stuff like

"It's just recent phenomenon provoked by Japanese government" is totally irrelevant to this discussion. All that counts is which one is used by English speakers - which is basically news sources.

Macgruder 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the archives. You can find more information about the discussion over Liancourt Rocks. Good friend100 05:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that discussion. Most of it was misunderstanding Wikipedia naming policy saying Liancourt Rocks was POV to Japanese. The ONLY thing that counts is the usage by English speakers, and this is inconclusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macgruder (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please calm down and be polite enough to be able to discuss? Your way of writing can amount to personal attack if you keep behaving like this. I don't know where you distrust against me came from. Please be aware that such attitude only undermines your credibility.

Please go to Senkaku Islands and try to change the title to either Senkaku/Diaoyutai or Pinnacle as hard as you do here. Every single argument of yours here can be equally applied to that case. Until then I can't believe your sincerity about what you're doing here. And I don't want to waste my time answering your ever repeating and unchanging comments, no matter what I say. Ginnre 20:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not only the usage in English that counts, other things come into play as well for example NPOV. Otherwise there is a danger that what has been called the Big Lie (say it loud enough often enough and people will believe it) could be construed as the name to use. With subject which have a low coverage in English, this is something that the use of Internet and search engines to determine common usage are particularly prone too. That is not to say that the name of the islets are subject to the big lie, just that there are an awful lot of pages generated by people with a political partisan axe to grind which distort what would be a very low count without the political interest.

For example a Google search for the word Rockall "returns about 511,000 English pages for Rockall" a Google search on Dokdo "about 128,000 English pages for Dokdo". Neither of these are very big internet samples when one considers that Lundy has about "3,210,000 English pages for Lundy" (Yes I know there are other meanings for the words that this simple search does not account for but I think it makes the point). --Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes google search can have various meanings, and that's what I first pointed out when Macgruder showed google results. Still, Liancourt Rocks cannot be so much the title as Pinnacle island isn't the title for Senkaku Islands. Ginnre 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No kidding. Please search and check Google News by using words "Dokko" or "Liancourt Rocks"

The result is apparent.　--Lulusuke 14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre are you really suggesting that if one page is in your opinion incorrectly named, that another should also be named incorrectly to balance out the first mistake (It reminds me of the advertising campaign for a credit card currently showing in the UK with the catch phrase "the clever dumb balance is restored" (by The Perlorian Brothers Agency?). Personally I think that that the merits of each case should be decided individually and they should not be linked in any way.--Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say any page is incorrectly named. You mean Senkaku is incorrectly named? I don't think so. Would you try to change the name there to Pinnacle first? If you will not, why is it like that? You don't care about Senkaku islands but do care much about these islands? Have you ever thought about why it is like that? The only difference between them is, I tell you, Senkaku islands are Japan-controlled, whereas Dokdo is not. Other than that, there is no difference in principle as far as I know. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Should that fact allow you name the articles in a different way? Too many articles in WP regarding Japan/Korea/China are described and named Japan-oriented. That shows simply Japanese voice is more heard in the western world and they are accustomed to viewing the things accordingly, but that does not necessarily reflect the state of the matter correctly or impartially. Ginnre 05:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ginnre I think you should respect other arguments. They're probably just trying to drive/hammer/score some sense into that head of yours. Oyo321 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect other arguments and know too well of them. As I wrote above, I also know what is problem with their views and I just point out how distorted they can be and that they can just reflect Japanese POV, whether they intend so or not. Ginnre 05:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that this article be moved? The article was moved from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo for reasons that you can read in the archive. Moving it back will start a move war. Good friend100 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mr.Philip Baird Shearer. In the almost English news sources except the Japanese and the Korean news sources, this island is introduced to people as the Japanese name is "Takeshima" and the Korean name is "Dokdo". In the Wikipedia that have to write based on neutral points of view, we should be refer to article as "Liancourt rocks" which is neither of a Japanese name and a Korean name. Because, the controversy over this island has happened between Japan and Korea.--Watermint 09:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. (or Ms.) Watermint. This is an English version of Wikipedia, thus I think "Liancourt rocks" is better. --Lulusuke 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that over and over again. There are THOUSANDS of words in english that are NOT english. Is the word "kimchi" english? Or is there an english word invented to describe "kimchi." Just because it is an English Wikipedia doesn't mean there HAS to be strictly english words only.

And we have already decided that Liancourt is an unfit name for Dokdo. We have already gone over that. Oyo321 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have already decided that Liancourt is an unfit name for Dokdo? Who are you? Why do you have the right to do that while a lot of people don't agree with you? Why is Liancourt an unfit name for Dokdo or Takeshima? Because you want people to remember this islets as Dokdo, don't you?--Shin19 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oyo is talking about the latest consensus that was reached on June 1, 2006 here. It was not Oyo who moved Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo without consulting others, Liancourt Rocks was moved to Dokdo because the majority of the users decided to move Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. If you feel that Dokdo should be moved to Liancourt Rocks, then propose a move with an explanation on the bottom of the talk page. —Mirlen 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What the consensus it is! That consensus was taken for very short time and igonored a lot of people's opinions. Dokdo is clearly Korean name. Why do you violate NEUTRAL?--Shin19 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia page for Senkaku Islands can remain being "Senkaku Islands" on Wikipedia, then Dokdo can remain on a page named "Dokdo". Some have tried to explain to me the difference between the two but seriously, I see no difference. The Senkaku Island page acts as a precedent for the Dokdo page. If this page gets named by the so-called "English" name "Liancourt" rocks, then Senkaku, which is being disputed by the P.R. China and Japan (with Japan in authority) should also be renamed to "pinnacle rocks", again, the so-called "English" name. --dandan xD 3:12pm, 13th Oct. 2006 (KST)

[edit] The name issue (Search results )

Names of Media	Dokdo	Liancourt Rocks	Takeshima
Newyork Times (Since 1981)	0	1	16
CNN.COM	0	0	80
news.BBC.co.uk	25	12	25
*.EDU domain	501	276	16,300
*.GOV domain	13	1	20,600
*.UK domain	1,110	295	1,450

--Lulusuke 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being inconsistent. First you want "Liancourt Rocks", but in your data table, you highly support "Takeshima". Which one do you want? Good friend100 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia plolicy and guideline are very important, so they supersede all previous understandings in our talk.

Thus I said "I agree with Mr. (or Ms.) Watermint". That's all. Thank you.--Lulusuke 12:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Refine your search, mister. You didn't type "Tokdo", which returned 7 results in nytimes. "Tok-do" returned 1 more. Type "Tokto" to get 4 more results.

# Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Soviet Expels 2 Japanese as Spies; Tokyo Reacts by Ousting Russian

... attache, Nobuhiro Takeshima, and the army attache ... Odessa. Mr. Takeshima was told to leave. ...View free preview August 21, 1987 - By BILL KELLER, Special to the New York Times (NYT) - World - News - 910 words

Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase U.S. AND JAPANESE DISAGREE IN ACCOUNT OF SHIP DISASTER

... newspapers. Tsukasa Takeshima, 25 years old, ...View free preview April 12, 1981 - By HENRY SCOTT STOKES, Special to the New York Times (NYT) - World - News - 615 words

Children's Books: Bookshelf

... plants. Katie Takeshima, the middle child, ... February 13, 2005 - (NYT) - Books - Review - 1010 words

Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Japan Aims to Stiffen Antitrust Penalties

... chairman, Kazuhiko Takeshima, who is leading the ... Koizumi, Mr. Takeshima helped draft legislation to strengthen ... co-conspirators. Mr. Takeshima says current penalties do little ...View free preview June 30, 2004 - By TODD ZAUN (NYT) - Business - News - 1332 words

These 4 don't concern Dokdo. In the end, in nytimes. 12 1 12. (Wikimachine 23:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

As for CNN, type Tokdo and return 52 results. Type Tokto and return 2. (Wikimachine 23:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

As for BBC, type Tokdo and return 1. Tokto returns 1. Tok-do returns 1. (Wikimachine 00:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Names of Media	Dokdo	Liancourt Rocks	Takeshima
Newyork Times (Since 1981)	12	1	12
CNN.COM	54	0	80
news.BBC.co.uk	28	12	25
*.EDU domain	148	1	(644, see below)
*.GOV domain	27	0	(109, see below)
*.UK domain	298	0	(327, see below)
*.COM domain	1733	42	(582, see below)
*.NET domain	709	18	(522, see below)

First of all, you made a serious mistake. Visit the last page of google search to avoid similar pages. You'll get omitted results count instead of total count.

Second, Takeshima results are tweaked because half of the time, Takeshima is a Japanese name.

Here are the evidences for .gov.

• [1] all 8 results were names.
• [2] all 10 results were names.
• [3] all 10 results were names.
• [4] all 10 results were names.

(Wikimachine 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Here are the evidences for .edu.

• [5] 4 were names.
• [6] 6 were names.
• [7] 5 were names.
• [8] 8 were names.
• [9] 9 were names.
• [10] 6 were names.

(Wikimachine 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Here are the evidences for .uk.

• [11] 4 were names.
• [12] 6 were names.
• [13] 6 were names.
• [14] 3 were names.
• [15] 5 were names.
• [16] 7 were names.

(Wikimachine 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

In response to the testing, I tried "Dokdo, Tokto, Tokdo, Dokto, Tok Islet, Dok Islet, Liancourt Rocks and Takeshima" on Google search with the following results.

1. 555 000, 117 000, 19 700, 217 000, 128 000, 12 400 for the various Korean names of Dokdo which in total amounts to 1 049 100
2. 47 300 for the so-called English name of Dokdo, 'Liancourt Rocks'
3. 652 000 for the Japanese name of the Korean Dokdo, 'Takeshima'

Unlike Japanese, Korean does not have a set romanisation method, therefore, there are a lot of different English variations to a Korean word. When I tested most of the romanisation I knew for Dokdo and added them altogether, the pages with Dokdo surpassed both Takeshima and 'Liancourt' rocks combined. Try it out for yourselves if you're unconvinced. Also, I do not recommend users testing this out on news articles because there are more articles about Japan than Korea, this is the reason as to why more people found the Japanese variant of Dokdo being used in some news portals. --DandanxD 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You should first learn how to calculate union of set A and set B, before writing about search results number. --Isorhiza 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at my search results. News media show equal amount of Dokdo and Takeshima (slightly more Dokdo). (Wikimachine 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Also, look up Takeshima on Wikipedia, it is not just used to define Dokdo, therefore, it totally debunks any searchs for 'Takeshima' made on Google. --DandanxD 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1)"Word Counting from the media" does not identifies the name of these islets. 2)As long as if Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima," it is not a huge conflict at all. We are not the ones who decides the name of these islets. AND THE READERS WILL KNOW THAT. 3)Koreans currently occupies these islets. Doesn't it confuses readers if we simply call these islets "Takeshima" only? for examle, "How can Koreans occupy Japanese-Named Islets?" I think we need to stay consistent. 4)Changing "Dokdo" into other competing names will not solve any conflicts. We are not the Naming Solver. Many people seems to disagree with "Dokdo". However, I personally doubt that frequently changing names of this article, without solving the actual problem, will help the researchers to easily refer back to during their research. --Jamesshin92 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction change

To not apply hypocritic double standards in Wikipedia, I have changed the introduction to mirror that of Senkaku islands. It is simply ridiculous to state that the word "administer" is NPOV and should not be used in Dokdo article while it has been used for years in Senkaku islands article. Deiaemeth 05:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I don't understand why Senkaku islands is related. We should be argue a matter of Dokudo here. In this problem and the Senkaku problem are quite different about the current status, the background, and details, etc.etc.... It is not fair to compare two problems with a different situation. Moreover, if you have any insistences about Senkaku, you must write on the talkpage of Senkaku islands.--Watermint 09:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you Watermint. It does matter. Senkaku islands is an article in the English Wikipedia and all policies are relevent and apply. So what if they are different situations? It should be consisted. Also, believing that Takeshima is the best name to use is wrong. The move from "Liancourt Rocks" to "Dokdo" had good reasons, look in the archive. Don't rechange what others rewrite because that can start an edit war. Good friend100 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is senkaku lying between Taiwan and Okinawa.

From Chinese viewpoint , "Dokdo" has close relation to "Su Yan Jiao(English Name:Socotra Rock, Chinese name:苏岩礁 )" that is a reef located in the northern East China Sea. The Socotra Rock is nearer than Senkaku. But I don't assert and claim to add Socotra Rock into this article, since we must keep Wikipedia policy and guideline.

Thank you.--Lulusuke 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC) --Lulusuke 13:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what being "consistent" means. If you want this article to be moved to "Liancourt Rocks" because its an English name and that its NPOV, then Senkaku Islands should be moved to "Socotra Rocks" which is an English name. If you want to be consistent, then move the Senkaku Island article. Good friend100 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

　Hi. I think "Senkaku Island shoud be moved to "Socotra Rocks" . It's natural --Lulusuke 12:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not built upon individual ideas. That is your personal opinion. Good friend100 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, Socotra Rock does not refer to Senkaku Islands, though, it refers to Su yan rock a.k.a. Ieodo. So Senkaku Islands should probably not be moved to Socotra Rock. Rōnin 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As the above user has pointed out, Senkaku Islands is not Ieodo (Socotra Rocks). They are two totally different rocks/islands out in the East China Sea disputed between China-Japan and Korea-China respectively. --DandanxD 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takeshima, Shimane

What are you doing? Moving an article requires discussion before moving it. I am reverting this. Good friend100 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we need an administrator to move the page back. -- Visviva 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to revert the move, but it simply said that there already was an article named "Dokdo". Good friend100 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the move as it was not discussed here first, and there was no consensus for the move. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, could you post a move tag onto this article? thanks. Good friend100 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? I'm not involved in this article to that extent, so if you want to discuss moving the article, you'll have to do it yourself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

=) Thanks for the advice but unfortunately I don't know how to post a move tag. I will refer to another admin for help. Good friend100 14:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, posting a move tag is rather easy... You just type {{move|subst}} where 'subst' is the name you'd like to move the page to. --Zonath^Yak 05:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Attack Against Controversial issues

This link from Ginnre's discussion page, [17], clearly shows Japanese mobilization against articles on Japan-Korea disputes and controversies. For example, not long ago Imjin War was changed to Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea. Now this article. And who knows whether some other related issues are being overturned to JPOV?

the 2ch.net specifically lists all the Korean Wikipedian editors, the list of disputes occuring, etc. Don't lose your focus. (Wikimachine 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps the POV pushers are from nichanneru. Good friend100 21:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In their link [18], they ran the 12th series of analysing and discussing how to take steps against 'Korean manipulation' of english WP.

(See thread number 1153715761 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 12 ).

In the thread (2ch.net), edits from Nihonjoe, Reuben, Circeus, Zonath, Kuru, Gogo Dodo, Zetawoof, Appleby, Goodfriend100, Bigtop, Ginnre, TheFarix, Pilotguy, Pgk were classified as pro-Korean or written by Korean. Each thread ran up to 1000 replies and that was 12th of them. It was several months ago, so I don't know how many more series of those analysing and discussing have gone through so far. Ginnre 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, look who's the hypocrite. This proves our point that some hypersensitive articles concerning Korea and Japan might have Japanese bias. dandan xD 11:08, 25 November 2006 (AEST)

You are welcomed to discuss which part is biased here. (Though someone has removed pov tag)--Jjok 00:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

Takeshima redirects to Dokdo, which in turn redirects to Dokdo/Takeshima. If you go to Takeshima, you find a notice about this double redirection, and you have to click on a link to see the actual article. This redirection needs to be solved. (Stefan2 06:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

No it doesn't... Maybe it's already been fixed then. --DandanxD 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the current situation section

Do we need the section below?

In 2005 a subway station in a Seoul suburb was the center of attention after posting art about the island by young school children depicting Japan in flames, the Japanese flag as toilet paper, etc. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4].

I mean, this only serves to make Koreans look irrational and anti-Japanese. Also, the pictures was just a sign of overall anti-Japanese feelings, and should not be in here. Any comments?

-- (General Tiger 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it. Anti-Japanese/Chinese attitudes are eternal in Korea. We can't do anything about that though... Oyo321 01:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I'm saying is that this part has nothing to do with Dokdo. Also, don't say such things; I'm pro-Japanese, for example. I've deleted that part, by the way. -- (General Tiger 02:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't like the part, either. At that time, the referred sites looked pretty well known among some users of 2ch.net and some editors here insisted to mention about that. In the beginning it was very in detail and somewhat has gone too far, so I reduced the paragraph and just indicated the fact and the links. I agree with you deleting it, as long as those original editors are OK without that paragraph. Otherwise we could discuss whether it is relevant to keep that paragraph in this article or not. Ginnre 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't it a news story about artwork concerning the islands? It was not simply about anti-Japanese feelings. Komdori 19:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But how is it relevent? Plus, I agree, there will always be anti-Japanese senitments in Asia and there's nothing we can do about that except hoping that it will subdue as time goes (and, of course, when Japan shows genunine remorse). --DandanxD 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request page protection

It seems that the edit wars are starting again.

-- General Tiger 00:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the current version

we need to go back to the version right before the current one. There's a lot of Japanese POV-- General Tiger 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that, not for POV reasons, but because much of the last edit (before protection) smacks of original research, and is unsupported by references. --Zonath^Yak 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename vote

moved to Dokdo -> Liancourt Rocks Korean/Japanese NPOV --Seaopd 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the voting on hold, until after more discussions. If you are going to do a poll, you need to determine the conditions. Our previous consensus would require the poll to be 2 weeks long, and restricted to editors with over 100 edits. Please discuss.--Endroit 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of a move. The name is not a POV.--General Tiger

Absolutely no more vote. It's been already Liancourt Rocks once and came back to Dokdo. This consensus was obtained after very very long discussion. Read archive before propose a vote. Ginnre 07:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose vote, as my web search results above clearly support Dokdo. It complies with all Wikipedia NPOV standards and naming conventions. (Wikimachine 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Support a move to Liancourt Rocks; the title "Dokdo" is obviously POV; if it wasn't, why would the Korea Times 한국일보 be writing editorials calling the renaming a "victory" for Korea? Liancourt Rocks would respect NPOV and recognise the fact that the issue is an unresolved dispute. --Ce garcon 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, it is Japan who promotes the name Liancourt Rocks. It's been repeatedly mentioned here that Liancourt Rocks is NOT a neutral name. It is an obsolete name usually not used in news articles. It is not like Liancourt Rocks has been widely used but some Koreans recently put effort in WP to change the title. The editorial of the Korea times used the term 'victory' in this sense, meaning Dokdo just shows status-of-quo more accurately as Senkaku island does in that article. To the world, until recently, Japanese POV has been generally more easily accepted or considered more authoritative while the circumstances have not been fully revealed or Korean POV has been not well heard or to be more easily dismissed as minor opinions regarding Japan-Korea issues. It is a 'victory' in a sense that not justifiable Japanese influence regarding this issue could be appropriately dismissed, serving NPOV in WP better. Ginnre 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask the source of he Korean Times editorial? Also, it's only a "unresolved" dispute since several Japanese conservatives are still clamoring over this -- General Tiger

i'm not conservative, but support vote. however, not necessary so soon. Dokdo (or Takeshima) is obviously not English. Wikipdedia's article name doesn't change anything in the real world. Several conservatives? You should realize that Korea made an enemy of all wings in Japan by claiming naming and territorial issues so eagerly. You may be satisfied with the article's name, but the small victory only makes Koreans look foolish to the eyes of people from the other part of the world. I'm ashamed of being a Japanese that shares cultures partly with Koreans. --Isorhiza 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify "unresolved dispute": I meant the issue of who owns Dokdo, not the renaming thing. Sorry if I confused you.

Also, what do you mean by "Korea made an enemy of all wings in Japan by claiming naming and territorial issues so eagerly?" If this is the case, then Japan made an enemy of all koreans by letting some people whitewash the Japanese Imperial history. Also, "Koreans look foolish to the eyes of people from the other part of the world?" Just what do you mean by other parts of the world? Then I would have to say that Japan is in even bigger trouble for ignoring the atrocities of the past. And "I'm ashamed of being a Japanese that shares cultures partly with Koreans?" Then I have to be ashamed of being from the same bloodline as the imperialists who tortured all of east Asia. Now,

I'm saying this as a pro-Japanese Korean, I mean you no harm, but please watch what your saying. I understand your concerns, but the way you're saying things can make you a target. -- General Tiger

"Japan made an enemy of all koreans by letting some people whitewash the Japanese Imperial history" maybe so, but it is not my mistake. I agree that to beautify the past is bad attitude. But present action cannot be justified by the past. You don't have to be ashamed of having imperialist sibling in the past. Imperialism was quite normal way to go before WWII. Still, many countries own dependencies and some big names even suppressing them. I will not justify the past by this, but this is the real world. --Isorhiza 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just countering your original post by using your own words, Isorhiza. -- General Tiger

Good call, Isorhiza. (Wikimachine 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Victory is defined as a net gain in relation to the risk of losses in a conflict. (Wikimachine 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

See Senkaku islands. Also, the last time we had a vote we had a thread in 2ch calling to purify Wikipedia of "Korean disgrace" and influx of sock puppets ... Deiaemeth 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True, true. Isorhiza has just painted a BIG bullseye circle on his forehead. Wait...did you just say that Korea was first to make an enemy of Japan? While Japan was cordial and kind to Korea? Oyo321 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Any proposal to move this page should be advertised on WP:RM and follow those procedures.
2. As it is less than six months since the last proposed move, and there is a tradition of waiting at least six months to propose a return move on WP:RM, I for one (and probably more people who monitor that page) would oppose such a move. So any proposed move advertised on WP:RM before December 1st is unlikely to reach a consensus and so will be counter productive for the proposer. If after six months such a move was proposed I would support it.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see how it is Isorhiza. Korea made itself an enemy of Japan? Its the other way around. And look whos talking "claiming territorial lands so eagerly". Who did that in the 20th century? Its simply a reclaiming of territorial land.

Of course you would be ashamed of having a culture so similiar to Korea. Ironically, thats where your ancestors' culture came from, which is Korea, which is undeniable. However, Japanese POV editors persist in removing information about Baekje in Japan related articles which is a shame to me, considering how immature it is to fail to admit the truth.

It seems you are angry that this article is not in the title to your satisfaction. If it was truly Japanese territory, it would have been named Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks long ago. Good friend100 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There can be no higher veracity behind Isorhiza's comments than Good friend100's. 50% of Japanese, as proved by a Japanese university (Tokyo?) share the same mitochondrial gene as Koreans. (Wikimachine 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with the move. Let's not be bias shall we? As I said a long time ago, I see no difference between Senkaku and Dokdo. If Dokdo gets moved to the so-called "neutral" name, 'Liancourt Rocks', I vote Senkaku to be moved to its "English/neutral" name. dandan xD 22:13, 18 November 2006 (KST)

I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THIS LONG AND LONG ARGUMENTS... AND I WROTE MY POINTS DOWN. Please if you are not going to read until the end, don't start reading it.

As long as if Wikipedia broadly refers to the "territorial disputation" between "Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima," it is not a humungous conflict. We are not the ones who decides the name of these islets. AND THE READERS WILL KNOW THAT.

In my opinion, people in this talk page does not understand the true controversy. The two controversies people are confusing with are, "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" and "the argument itself." People are thinking way too off. The argument will not solve even when the name of the article changes back and forth thousand times.

1. "Which one? (Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt rocks)" is more of Korean Japanese controversy. Which means that anybody outside of Korea, and Japan, really makes opinions not facts. Korea claims have the evidence. Japan also claims have the evidence. Do Americans have the evidence? Do Canadians have the evidence? Do Italians have the evidence? Do you have the evidence? This jumps into my next point. Word counting in the media has no connection here, because only one of the three candidates (Dokto, Takeshima, and Liancourt rorks) is right (or perhaps the "best"), and nobody knows that outside of Korea and Japan. Frequent use of word is not the right answer, that is the word people often used outside of Korea and Japan, it might be wrong, it might be right. Do you know? You can make opinions... not the true statements, since there would be millions of people opposing you. So nobody can officially SOLVE the problem, you can try, opposing millions of people arguing against you, threatening you, or sending you virus.

2. So why don't we jump into my next point? Why do we bother changing the article that will not solve anything? Did changes to the article "Liancourt Rocks" into "Dokdo" solve any problem? I'm not saying that "Dokdo is the right word," but why do we bother changing the article that will suprise thousands of people and erect the non-ending conflict again? In my opinion. We should calm ourselves down, and just pause this non-ending conflict, and try best as we can to stablize and stay consistent.

So therefore, I want "Dokdo" to stay in this article.

Thank you for reading...

--Jamesshin92 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And if this page does get redirected to "Liancourt Rocks", Senkaku Islands should also be redirected/moved it its 'netural' name. If that article does not get moved, it is obviously clear that Dokdo should stay as it is. --DandanxD 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to interupt the renaming vote but...

I believe we need to go back to the version right before the current one. There's a lot of Japanese POV-- General Tiger 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you identify the JPOVs? I'll fix them systematically. (Wikimachine 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dokdo&diff=prev&oldid=80609072

Yes, I'm advocating an edit under my name, but that was the form in which the article existed during when the article was closed before. The only major edit was concerning the thing in the "In the current situation section" above. -- General Tiger

You are right. This is original research, and straw man argument edits. They show bunch of Korean original historical texts & then disprove them with JPOV analytical essays. They bring a lot of bad arguments from KPOV & then disprove them. This must be fixed. (Wikimachine 22:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

So, do I go to ask for editing? -- General Tiger

[edit] how shameful

I am disheartened to see this crap that pro Takeshima editors slop onto this article. And I mean it. Good friend100 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from trolling. Pointing fingers at one side or the other doesn't solve anything. --Zonath^Yak 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be completely locked. Good friend100 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To what end? The vandalism has more or less ended since the page has been semi-protected. --Zonath^Yak 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with Good friend100's comment on how massloads of ignorant people have been changing the Dokdo page to make it compatible with their own 'theory', I also agree with Zonath that 'semi'-lock has proved itself to work and block out the people we do not want. Let's keep the restriction as it is and see for another few weeks. dandan xD 18:09 20 November 2006 AEST

Ok. Good friend100 18:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese government admits that Dokdo is Korean territory

http://korea.net/News/News/NewsView.asp?serial_no=20061120001&part=102 http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200611/200611200015.html http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20061120/610000000020061120061553E1.html

I haven't been able to find any other news for this, as the Japanese media hasn't said a squawk yet. But this might be a start, and I suppose that someone with the authority can update the article with those.

I'll try to find out more from less biased sources in the meantime.

Interesting, but they didn't say that Dokdo is Korean territory. They just recognized the authenticity of one document. The Japanese government doesn't appear to have concluded so far that the document really refers to Dokdo instead of some other island, remains binding today, or invalidates Japan's claims (for instance, the terra nullius claim from 1905 would not be inconsistent with the idea that in 1877 Dokdo was not part of Japan). --Reuben 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Finally some positive news! Hope Japanese media outlets comment on this latest development soon. - dandan xD 10:41pm 22 November 2006 (AEST)

Yes, but what will we do with this information? We can't just drop the information on Japanese claims in the article. Good friend100 18:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, or the pro-Japanese users will probably launch another edit war. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the findings. --DandanxD 10:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is original source[19][20][21]. The composition of this document is as follows.

1.Proposal of cadastral survey to Shimane Prefecture from Home office geography bureau. (October 5, 1876)

2.Confirmation of cadastral survey from Shimane Prefecture to Home Office Minister.This document is composed of a body, attached document, and an attached map. (October 16, 1876)

3.Confirmation from Home Office Vice Minister to the Minister of the Right. The original investigation result of Home office is appended. (March 17, 1877)

4.Takeshima and the other one island are unrelated to Japan. (The manufacturer is uncertain. March 29, 1877)

It can be presumed that the other one island is Takeshima/Dokdo when only a title of body and attached document by Shiomane are seen. (However, it contradicts the content of a body. ) There is a possibility that it is Takeshima/Dokdo or is jukdo when only an attached map and a body by Shimane are seen. However, it adjusts to a body assumption as jukdo. In addition, Home office thought that Matsushima is Ullengdo and Takeshima is Algonort until 1881. Therefore, there are three hypotheses.

The other one island=Matsushima(in attached document by shimane)=Takeshima/Dokdo[It thought the value of attached document by Shimane is high]

The other one island=Manoshima(in attached map by shimane)=jukdo[It thought the value of a body by Shimane is high]

The other one island=Matsushima(in attached document by shimane)=Ullengdo[It thought the value of geography recognition of Home office is high]

--Opp2 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misinterpretation of the Ahn Yong-bok incident part

This part is especially cruel.

1.Takeshima is about 160-ri (64km) from Oki but only about 40-ri (16km) from Korea; therefore, it can be considered Korean territory as it is nearer to that country.

"it can be considered Korean territory as it is nearer to that country" is a wrong translation. "it(Takeshima) also seems Ullengdo of Chosun" is correct. The shogunate and Chosun disputed Ullegdo and Takeshima are another island or the same island. "Oki but only about 40-ri" is a wrong translation too. The discription that corresponds to " but only" is not in the original. In addition, 1-ri of Japan is 4km. Original source is follows "道程ノ儀相尋候ヘハ伯耆ヨリハ百六十里程有之 朝鮮ヘハ四十里程有之由ニ候 然ハ朝鮮國ノ蔚陵島ニテモ可有之候哉"

2.Japanese are forbidden henceforth to make passage to Takeshima.

This doesn't have the objection.

3.The lord of Tsushima should communicate this to Korea.

It is uncertain which part translation it.

4.He should also send the Osakabe Daisuke (judge) of Tsushima to Korea officially to notify the Korean government of this decision and report the result of his mission to the Kanpaku.

It is uncertain which part translation it. First of all, there is no word "Kanpaku" in this document. A Kanpaku at that time is not the shogunate but court noble's official position. It is an impression operation to give the possibility to the lie testimony of Ahn Yong-bok.(Chosun answered japan that he is liar's foolish people, he is unrelated to the government, and Ahn's treaty is unrelated to the government.) The shogunate is not declaring Takeshima to be a Chosun territory in this document. In this document the reasons for the take a passage prohibition are follows.

1.The evidence doesn't exist though it is not possible to pass to Korea if the Japanese lived.(夫トモニ日本人居住仕候カ此方ヘ取候島ニ候ハハ今更遣シカタキ事ニ候ヘトモ左様ノ証據等モ無之候間)

2.It is also useless to come to a rupture the diplomatic relation for this island. (蚫取ニ参リ候迄ニテ無益島ニ候處此儀ムスホホレ年来ノ通交絶申候モ如何ニ候)

3.It is not possible to take military action for this island. (御威光或ハ武威ヲ以テ申勝ニイタシ候テモ筋モナキ事申募リ候儀ハ不入事ニ候)

4.Because belonging was not clarified, the take a passage decided to be prohibited.(竹島ノ儀元シカト不仕事ニ候 例年不参候)

In addition it is necessary to describe the denial of the effect of Ahn's testimony clearly by a Chosun government. [22] --Opp2 09:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)08:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

When shogunate and Chosun negotiate about Ullengdo, Grounds of Chosun were records of seeing Ullengdo from the peninsula in the Don'guk yeoji seungnam[23]. South Korea is interpreting the same record now as Takeshima was seen from Ullengdo. Is the document of this official Chosun disregarded why? Is Wikipedia a propaganda site for South Korea?--Opp2 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The map shows international boundaries and foreign countries in different colors: Korea is in yellow and Japan in green. On the map Ullungdo and Tokdo are shown in their correct positions in yellow.

This description is Korean POV. In the insistence of Japan, it is not dokdo/Takeshima but it is Usando. Chosun regularly inspected Ullengdo after Ahn incident. However, Takeshima/Dokdo is not included in the inspection. Usando indicates jukdo in the record and map of Chosun at that time[24][25]. Therefore, Usando that a Chosun government recognizes is jukdo, and Japanese Matsushima that the Chosun government inevitably recognizes becomes chukdo, too. Are the search record and the map of Usando by the Chosun government disregarded why?--Opp2 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ahn had the Tokugawa Shogunate reconfirm in writing that Ulleung-do and Dokdo were Korean possessions" is a Ahn's　testimony. This Shogunate's document is being confirmed by neither Japan nor Chosun. Therefore, the Tsushima clan confirmed the document to a Chosun government. The answer of the Chosun is "A Chosun government doesn't know the document, and be unrelated. He is the foolish people with the lie." In addition, when he was repatriated from Nagasaki, the shogunate sent the letter to a Chosun government with a formal messenger. The shogunate's letter is requested to prohibit the Chosun people's Takeshima making a passage. And, Takeshima(Ullengdo)'s owning right duel occurred with a Chosun government. If his testimony is correct, such a letter won't be sent. Therefore, the possibility of this is his lie is very high. Why is not the lack of the correspondence of such historical records described? Is his testimonies given to priority more than intergovernmental Public Record? Is it because of inconvenience to the insistence of South Korea? --Opp2 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The South Korean goverment has nothing to do with the Dokdo article. Also, it is unconfirmed that "In the insistence of Japan, it is not dokdo/Takeshima but it is Usando." This statement is also Japanese POV because it is what Japan believes. Also, the Shogunate confirmed in writing to the Chosun government. It doesn't make sense that it would be confirmed to nobody but one person. Good friend100 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an insistence of Japan though is natural. The problem is that there is only Korea POV. There is even no Korea Empire map in 1899[26]. An official demand to Chosun from shogunate and the answer of Chosun about Ahn is true. Therefore, I will change to the following compositions for NPOV.

1.Repatriation of Ahn and formal demands from the shogunate to Chosun.

2.Insistence of shogunate and Chosun about Ullengdo, prohibition of passage to Takeshima(Ullengdo) by shogunate

3.Ahn's testimony in Chosun

4.Formal answer of Chosun about Ahn and shogunate writing

5.Insistence of Korea

6.Insistence of Japan

The volume of the insistence of Japan and Korea is assumed to be equal.

Though I can prove the lie of Ahn's testimony, I will stop it because it become prolixity.(He met the person who stays in Tokyo at Shimene, a person who has already died is a feudal lord, and he encountered a Japanese fisherman who did not go out fishing. etc.) I am expecting you to cooperate in the edit because my English is poor.--Opp2 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the original source of this description?

The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates. Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun went to the Japanese side as Korean delegates, but were captured and taken to the lord of Okinoshima.

The record of Chosun mentions that they have been threatened with the gun by Japanese fishermans at Ullengdo. --Opp2 06:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

amended bill part1(from the visit to Japan in 1963 to the Ullengdo dispute)
In a present description, the historical materials selection has been very biased. Most is Ahn's testimony and an indefinite(creation?) episode has been inserted. Therefore, the following were assumed to be a basic policy.
1.Both are described when there is a difference in the record of the two countries.
2.The creation is not added.
3.A worthless event is not described.
The amendment bill and the correction reason are as follows.

The spring of 1693 about 40 Korean fisherman clashed with the Japanese fishermen at Ulleung-do. Japanese took Ahn Yong-bok and Pak O-dun from among Korean to the Oki. Ahn was inquested in Oki and Tottori clan. After Ahn return to Korea, he testified that I was then taken to Edo, the Tokugawa Shogunate made a note that confirmed Ulleung-do as Chosun territory and was taken up the note by the Tsushima clan. However in the record of Japan, such events were not and even didn't go to Edo. Ahn was then held hostage in Tsushima and was extradited to Chosun with a chiaus of Tsushima clan. The chiaus requested the prohibition of Korean passage to Ulleung-do according to the Shogunate's order. As a result, Ulleung-do's attribution problem occurred between the two countries.

In a diplomatic negotiation about Ulleung-do, the Shogunate insisted peaceful effective control for 80 years. Chosun insisted that Ulleung-do was recorded in ancient don'guk yeoji seungnam which mentioned that Ulleung-do be seen from Korea peninsula. After all, the Shogunate prohibited the Japanese passage to Ulleung-do to avoid becoming a serious dispute in January, 1696 .

The main correction matter and the reasons

“The Japanese proposed that the matter be settled peacefully and asked the Koreans to send their delegates” Deletion: an original source is indefinite or creation and value is low

“The lord of Okinoshima soon found the case outside his official competency and sent Ahn to his superior, the magistrate of Hokishu” Deletion: value is low.

“After Ahn return to Chosun, he testified that” Addition: clarification of source

“However in the record of Japan, such events were not and even didn't go to Edo.” Addition: The record of the two countries is described in parallel for enormous discrepancy

“the provincial governor reported the incident to the Tokugawa Shogunate, which warned the governor of Busan, which was home to the Japanese consulate and quarter, to tighten the control of Korean "transgressors". This led to diplomatic friction between Hanseong and Edo” Major adjustment: meaning is indistinct (The main factor of the dispute is Shognate's demand to prohibit the Korean passages)

“In 1694, Korea warned Japan to stay away from Ulleung-do, and Japan prohibited Japanese vessels from going to Ulleung-do” Deletion: value is low (The dispute of Ullengdo has already been happened )

“In a diplomatic negotiation about Ulleung-do…….” Addition: value is high for the interpretation of historical records about dokdo

“As a response to the Korean warning, the Kanpaku…….” Major adjustment: misinterpretation (Original source is here[27][28])

Please describe an original source clearly when you point out the problem and point out the mistake of my poor English.--Opp2 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I understand that you want to edit information about Ahn Yong-bok. Could you make your argument more concise so that I see what you really want? The Ahn Yong-bok incident was when Ahn went to the Japanese government to confirm that Dokdo and Ulleungdo were Korean territories. Good friend100 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My purpose is exclusion of fabrication, the misinterpretation, and the information control. You think Ahn's testimony to be correct. It is your freedom. However, it is a public opinion inducement that excludes an inconvenient record. Everybody has to judge it showing both records.I do not want unrelated, abstract and emptiness discassion.--Opp2 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In the record of Japan, Ahn's footprint is understood in detail. He didn't go to Edo. I may add this. His testimony at Chosun and which can be trusted? It is your freedom which to be trusted. However, one-sided exclusion of information is not permitted. You would not have known these records of Japan. Because the Korean scholar excludes it. A general person who cannot read the original source can do nothing but believe the scholar's writing. It is exactly propaganda of the Korea by the Korea for the Korea.

1693

Apr 26, Ahn arrived at Yonago.

Apr 28, Ahn was placed under house arrest to Otani's house.

May 11, Ahn's going out is prohibited.

May 16, The shogunate instructs repatriation to Nagasaki.

May 29, Ahn leaved Yonago.

Jun 1, Ahn arraived Tottori.

Jun 2, Shikibu met Ahn.

Jun 7, Ahn leaved Tottori.

Jun 30, Ahn arrived Nagasaki.

etc.

--Opp2 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of description about Ogasawara

The following descriptions are should deleted.

Notably, however, the Japanese did not contact other countries of its annexation of Dokdo as it did with the acquisition of the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands in the Pacific, when it contacted Great Britain and the U.S. several times, which were only remotely involved in them, as well as notified 12 European countries of its establishment of control over the islands.

Deletion reason

1.There is no direct relation to Takeshima.

2.The incorporation of islands by Japan at that time didn't come in contact with another country except Ogasawara (ex. Borodino islands, Volcano islands, Marcus Island, Rasa, Kendrick, Weeks,Gangee, Sulfer, San Alessandro). Ogasawara is a peculiar example, because only Ogasawara already had been controlled effectively by other country(England).

Therefore, it is necessary to delete Ogasawara's description or to add the validity of the insistence of Japan by other cases for NPOV. I will delete when there is no logical and specific rebuttal. --Opp2 07:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"I will delete when there is no logical rebuttal" NO. You can not delete any part of the article on Dokdo without a full discussion on this so-called issue. This is a sensitive article which has been subject to vandalism from pro-Japanese (and to some extent, pro-Korean) users and if you go on with your eradication of information without majority consent, it will be considered vandalism. Also, please do not give users snippets of the article. Rather, post what the article was addressing using the quote you have provided. (e.g. what the article was talking about in the wider context) --DandanxD 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? Do though it doesn't protect? There is no your feelings theory needing. I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV. --Opp2 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, please do not challenge other editors on Wikipedia. You do not have to be an admin to restrict any vandalism. Large pieces of information in an article cannot be deleted without consensus with others because it is vandalism. If you want to delete state a reason. Good friend100 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am presenting grounds and logic to gain a consensus for NPOV. What is the reason to refuse a constructive discussion? Do you have the authority to obstruct NPOV? There is no your feelings theory needing. I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV. ----Opp2 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please ask an admin for protect this article if you want to blockade even a logical, constructive and specific proposal.--Opp2 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if a proposal is logical or constructive. To delete a large piece of the article is considered vandalism and requires discussion before deletion. Good friend100 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that present discription of this topic is NPOV though you saw the cases that I presented? Isn't it a malignant information control? I hope a logical and specific rebuttal about this topic (Ogasawara case) for NPOV.--Opp2 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the section, Ogasawara Island is important to the article. It shows how Japan notified the annexation of Ogasawara island, while keeping Dokdo's annexation secret. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Korea claims that Japan illegally annexed Dokdo while the Ogasawara island was annexed after other countries were notified. That is not POV.

And, Ogasawara island was already being controlled, as you mentioned, by England and Japan annexed it while notifying England. However, Japan did not notify Korea of the annexation.

The information is about annexation disputes that happened between Korea and Japan. There is nothing wrong or irrevelent with that information. Good friend100 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not want unrelated, abstract and emptiness discassion. It is useless of time. Let's entrust it to the admin's judgment. Please teach when you know the reporting method to admin because I do not know this system well.--Opp2 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ogasawara case is a very important certainly for Korea POV. The precondition of Ogasawara that another country was controlled effectively Takeshima that was not is different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opp2 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Ogasawara is important because there is a difference with Takeshima. Other cases are not important because it is the same as Takeshima. It is convenient in the insistence of South Korea that there is a difference. It is inconvenient that there is no difference. Is this NPOV?I hope a logical discussion. --Opp2 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Korea of your comment was replaced with Japan. "Reading the section, other cases are important to the article. They shown that Japan was able to acquire title without notifications. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Japan claims that legally annexed Dokdo while the ohter cases islands were annexed without notification. That is not POV. And, other cases were not already being uncontrolled, by other countries and Japan annexed it without notifying other counties. Therefore, Japan did not notify of the annexation quite similarly." In your logic, this is admitted. Therefore, I should add other cases. I say that stop both because it become garrulous. --Opp2 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opp2, In reply to your comment, I do not think you understand Wikipedia and its operations. I may not be an administrator but that does not mean I do not understand Wikipedia guidlines. Since this page has been 'semi-protected', if you delete/modify/add anything to this article, without consulting other users, it will be considered as vandalism. I think you should read the guidlines surrounding Wikipedia. Also, the 'admin' does not control everything I think you should understand that. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia created by users like me and you, not soley by admins. Also, I consider the Ogasawara part very relevent because as Goodfriend has said, it shows how Japan knew Korea's soveriegnty over Dokdo, thus, to make things easier for them, decided not to alert other countries of their annexation of that part of Korea beforehand, like they did with Ogasawara. --DandanxD 01:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is semi-rprotect, I discuss here before edit. You try to prohibit even a logical discussion for the edit. I think you should read the guidlines surrounding Wikipedia. Feelings theory and your subjectivity is unnecessary. Did Japan know that 石島 of the decree41 was Takeshima? Do though the dialect theory is a hypothesis that has come out after the ww2? You should study the effective cotrol and the sovereignty of International Law. In question wasnot the notification obligation. It is because it is an insistence based on a deliberate selection of information. I should add the following sentences to exclude manipulation of information if not agreeing to the deletion .

The English had already lived in Ogasawara, the port was constructed, and the whaler in each country was using. Therefore, the negotiation of each country was indispensable in the territorial dispute. However, Japan acquired title by occupation of many uninhabited island cases without notification(ex. Borodino, Volcano, Marcus etc.). Any protest has not been received to title of Japan about these islands up to the present time. Dokdo was an uninhabited island where any country was not controled effectively at that time. Therefore, Japan insist that Dokto's situation is completely corresponding to not Ogasawara but these uninhabited islands cases.

Choices are two. Both are described or both are deleted to avoide a manipulation of information(basic propaganda technique). Let's discuss the notification obligation after this topic. However, one is advised. If this site and Korean professor of InternationalLaw(Myong Ji) have been trusted[29], you should read the original of the quoted scholar. You might be greatly disappointed. A cruel misinterpretation and fabrication are done. --Opp2 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why Ogasawara island is relevant to Dokdo. Please give a clear, conicse reason why you think it should be deleted. It is perfectly fine and by deleting it, you will commit vandalism. And stop criticizing others. They are trying to help. Good friend100 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only an opinion of South Korea to resemble Ogasawara. It is an information control to write only one of insistences and case. Then, the insistence of Japan is similarly added. You should agree because that is based on your logic. Which is logical has the reader judge it. Is there any problem?

"Reading the section, other cases are important to the article. They shown that Japan was able to acquire title without notifications. The information is relevent to Dokdo's dispute between Korea and Japan. Japan claims that legally annexed Dokdo while the ohter cases islands were annexed without notification. That is not POV. And, other cases were not already being uncontrolled, by other countries and Japan annexed it without notifying other counties. Therefore, Japan did not notify of the annexation quite similarly." This is based on your logic. --Opp2 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The mentioning of Ogasawara is only an example to support the conclusion that "(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.)" Regardless of whether or not the British had controlled Ogasawara, I'm sure that the British left the island later & also Koreans weren't notified of the annexation of Dokdo until 1906; therefore, the Japanese didn't notify to Korea even when there should have been the necessity/obligation to do so, while they did to the British gov when there was a necessity (is that right, that British controlled the Bonin islands). (Wikimachine 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

It is a notification obligation in the title by occupation and a quotation case. Your rebuttal is irrelevant. It is unrelated to the contradiction of Japan (insistence on two or more title) for this topic. Because it is an opportunity, I tell the contradiction of Japan and international law. I do not think that you know International Law well. International Law concerning title of occupation has developed as follows.

1.Until the 17th century: The discovery was made title.

2.18-20th century:The discovery was made a inchoate title, and the effective control came to be requested for acquisition.

In addition, the effective control comes to be demanded from not only the acquisition of title but also continuance in the 20th century. "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. (PALMAS CASE)" The insistence of Japan can be interpreted as that effective control for the maintenance of the title was established by the Shimane incorporation in 1905 according to the development of International Law. An official site of Japanese Government is "Reconfirmation. " Who decided that "terra null policy"?

And, it is an old trick that insists on two or more title and not illegal. You will study the insistence of U.S. in PALMAS case, study insistance of Indonesia and Malaysia in Ligitan and Sipadan case. Even if each insistence does the conflict, it doesn't become equitable estoppel. The nation insists every mortal title if there is a possibility. That is, "terra nullius creates a contradiction in the Japanese argument" is a POV of the Korea by the Korea for the Korea.

There is fabrication with a cruel part "After World War II". "CEASE THE JAPAN'S ADMINISTRATION POWER" in scapin677 is fabricated with "EXCLUDE JAPAN". The modal meaning is quite different. Sovereignty(It contains right of administration) and title cannot be distinguished. If the cease of the administrative power means the title by cession, the U.S. army base in South Korea will become a territory of the United States. Why does South Korea fabricate it?　Because there is no advantageous one for South Korea in International Law. A general person believes in it blindly because the Korean scholar misinterprets it as follows.

A Korean scholar says that "M.F. Lindley viewed it proper to regard notification and effective occupation as the necessary conditions for occupation, before and after the signing of the 1885 Berlin Act."[30]

However, the original is as follows.

"BACKWARD TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONA LAW" by M.F.LINDLEY(1926)

CHAPTER: EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

p143

Article 34 will be dealt with in the Capter on 'Notification.' Article 35 calls for several observations.

(syncopation)

p157

According to views adopted by Britain, Germany, France and the United States, at the time of before and after the Berlin conference, there were no colonial states which took exception to the application of new rule of occupation, and it seems to be justified to say that all recent acquisition of territory obeys to this rule irrespective of whether it is the African coast or not (The Korean scholar might have summarized around here. However, here is a part concerning "EFFECTIVE".)

CHAPTER: NOTIFICATION

p295[31]

These isolated special agreements, when taken into conjunction with the fact that, apart from the region dealt with in Article 34, notifications have been the exception rather than the rule, seve to emphasize the point that such notifications were not required by general law.

In the discussion with the Korean, the second source is unreliable. The primitive source is indispensable. A present description of Dokdo article is a Korean propaganda to cheat man who doesn't know the base of International Law. The judicial precedent of the island is for your information presented.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court further states that "at the time when these activities werecarried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

• Japan is expressing the protest to the effective controls of present South Korea.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

Finally, Indonesia states that the waters around Ligitan and Sipadan have traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. The Court observes, however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority.

• Acts by Ahn Yong-bok of the 17th century was as private person. A Chosun government also denied the relation to him.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court observes that these three islands are surrounded by many smaller islands that could be said to "belong" to them geographically.The Court, however, considers that this cannot apply to Ligitan and Sipadan, which are situated more than 40 nautical miles away from the three islands in question.

• Takeshima away at 92km from Ullengdo cannot be interpreted as an attached island of Ullengdo.

PALMAS

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.

• The effective control becomes excellent title.

PALMAS

The growing insistence with whichinternational 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.

• There is no immediate evidence to effective control by Korea Empire or Chosun.

PALMAS

Territorial sovereignty, as has already beensaid, involves the exclusive right to display activities of a state. This right has corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory. Without manifesting its its territorial sovereignty in a manner corresponding to circumstance, the State cannot fulfil this duty.

• There is no immediate evidence to effective control by Korea Empire or Chosun. She had not performed her duty.

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(PCIJ)

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 the 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.

• The effective control becomes excellent title.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)

The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. Regulations or administrative acts of a general nature can therefore be taken as effectivites with regard to Ligitan and Sipadan only if it is clear from their terms or their effects that they pertained to these two islands. Given the circumstances of the case, and in particular in view of the evidence furnished by the Parties, the Court concludes that Malaysia has title to Ligitan and Sipadan on the basis of the effectivites referred to above.

• Reliable evidence to effective control is necessary also in the uninhabited island. In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905. Stone Island of the 41st decree by Korea Empire at 1900 is also indefinite.

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain(ICJ)

Certain types of activities invoked by Bahrain such as the drilling of artesian wells would, taken by themselves, be considered controversial as acts performed a titre de souverain. The construction of navigational aids, on the other hand, can be legally relevant in the case of very small islands. In the present case, taking into account the size of Qit'at Jaradah, the activities carried out by Bahrain on that island must be considered sufficient to support Bahrain's claim that it has sovereignty over it.

• Reliable evidence to effective control is necessary also in the uninhabited island.

Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration(PCA)

Fishing Activities by Private Persons

For state activity capable of establishing a claim for sovereignty,the Tribunal must look to the state licensing and enforcement activities concerning fishing described above.

• In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ)

For the Court, there appears to be a strong presumption in favour of this view, without it being possible however, to draw any definitive conclusion as to the sovereignty over the groups, since this question must ultimately depend on the evidence which relates directly to possession.

• The insistence that Usando is Takeshima by South Korea is presumption. Stone Island of the 41st decree by Korea Empire at 1900 is also ndefinite. In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture from 1905.

MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ)

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the connection became closer again, because of the growing importance of oyster fishery. The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation, such as criminal proceedings concerning the Ecrehos, the levying of taxes on habitable houses or huts built in the islets since 1889, the registration in Jersey of contracts dealing with real estate on the Ecrehos.

• In Japan, there is a fishery activity based on permission by Shimane Prefecture(local administration) from 1905.

PALMAS

A rule of this kind adopted by Powers in1885 for African continent does not apply deplano to other region, and thus the contract with Taruna of 1885, or with Kandahar-Taruna of 1889, even if they were to be considered as first assertions of sovereignty over Palmas would not be subject to the rule of notification.

• It is not necessary to notify in occupation ahead excluding Africa. Occupation by at 1905 is effective.

You might understand the reason why the South Korean does the misinterpretation and fabrication. And, it is necessary to conceal such information for Korea. These are the reasons why the South Korea government runs away from ICJ. Please do after acquiring accurate knowledge if you talk about International Law (ex. tella null and notification). --Opp2 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I will introduce this[32] Korean scholar's further one fabrication.

This stupid Korean scholar say fallows.

" 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 states 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".

However, the original is as follows.[33]

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.

This stupid Korean scholar intentionally deleted "Nevertheless". The purpose is to fabricate it to interpret as an opposite meaning. In addition he say that "John B. Moore also advocates the obligation of notification by citing Hall' s above-mentioned argument". Moore quotes the distription of HALL as it is in his book(1906 A DIGEST INTERNATIONAL LAW by John Bassett More). That is, Moore doesn't admit approval as the common law either.

This stupid Korean seems to be a "Professor of International Law, Myong Ji University, Korea."--Opp2 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Opp2

Other than the fact that your English is hard to follow, your Japanese point of view is pretty hard to stand. This article is the work of several dozens of people, of each more than half are neutral non-Japanese/Korean. Your accustion of editers being Koreans, and calling scholars stupid, no matter how unlogical they may sound to you, is childish behavior. I suggest that you first straighten out your facts, and clean up your English before making arguments. --General Tiger December 11, 2006, 10:32 (UTC)

Here, second sources seem to be given to priority more than original sources. "each more than half are neutral non-Japanese/Korean" are cheated　by seccond source by Korean. You should read the book on HALL and Rindley. This book is unrelated to my poor English[34][35].--Opp2 10:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First, those books are irrelevent to the Dokdo article. Also, most editors here are not cheaters. Stop believing that only Koreans cheat: I've seen worse cases concerning Japanese editors. Also, please read the PDF below. They contain all major evidence that's relevent to yours. This should show you how you should state your arguements. --General Tiger December 11, 2006, 11:20 (UTC)

Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute, Sean Fern, Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Volume 5 Number 1 (Winter 2005), pp.78-89  (PDF)

Do you think that the notification obligation is unrelated to this article? I completely agree to you. I should delete the description concerning the notification obligation and terra null policy.

Please teach me the following evidences if a present description is fair. I hope in original sources(Judicial precedent or Book on scholar of International Law until 1950).

Evidence that notification obligation had been approved on International Law.

Evidence that Japan insisted on title by occupation(in association with tella null policy).

Evidence that cease administration power means the title by cession on International Law(in association with scap677).

Evidence that indirect presumption is admitted as will of occupancy on International Law(in association with imperial decree No 41).

My best regards. --Opp2 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me time? My end-term tests goes on until next week. After that, I'll be happy to talk with you and figure out how to make this article better. Also, I'll hvae some friends keep up the discussions. Glad talking with you.--General Tiger December 11, 2006, 11:45 (UTC)

I see. However, I cannot permit this scholar[36]. He don't have ethics as the scholar. He becomes only the obstruction of the problem solving.--Opp2 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)