Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Liancourt Rocks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

See Archive 12: Did Ahn Yong-bok go to Edo and receive the Kanpaku's note? for earlier discussion on this topic.

About the source of "either island"
Present article is follows.

The South Korean government insists that the area of "Ulleung-do" included the Liancourt rocks, as the treaty also mentioned that Japanese sailors should not travel to either island.

It is only Takeshima(Ulleung-do at that time) becoming the agenda in a diplomatic negotiation. Please teach me the source of "either island." The original text of prohibition on sailing to Ulleung-do by shognate is "???????????." This[1] is a document that the Tsushima clan gave Korea. I cannot find the word that can be interpreted as "either island."--Opp2 09:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, what is the "treaty"? When did Japan and Korea conclude a treaty? --Opp2 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Present article and issues about the judgment of shogunate
As a response to the Korean warning, the Kanpaku issued the following instructions to So Yoshimichi, So Yoshitsugu's successor and new lord of Tsushima (translated into English):

Kanpaku is an official position of the Emperor at that time. This document is a conference between senior statesmens of shogunate and the load of Tsushima clan. "Senior statesmens of shogunate" is accurate.

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.

Original text is "?????????????????(therefore, it can be considered that (Japanse Takeshima is ) same island as Korean Ulleungdo)" [2] There was a theory that Japanse Takeshima and Korean Ulleungdo were another islands. Especially, Korea sent the document that made Takeshima and Ullengdo another island first to the Japanese envoy. This sentence is a judgment of the shogunate of the first insistence of Korea. It doesn't become a translation like present article. And, 1ri is 4km in Japan.

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

The prohibited reason is not written. Original text is "????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????(If the Japanese resides, Takeshima cannot be now passed to Korea. However, there was not such evidence, and we decided to finish amicably.)" and "??????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????(Takeshima is a useless island only to gather the abalone. Friendly relations of Japan-Korea need not be destroyed (for this island). Solving it by the military power of the shogunate is foolish.)."

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

?? The meaning is quite uncertain. Who is "He"? Osakabe Daisuke is official position of load of Tsuhima clan. Does the lord of the Tsushima clan go to Korea as a messenger?

Amendment bill about the judgment of shogunate
As result of diplomatic negotiation, senior statesmens of shogunate issued the following instructions to the load of Tsuhima clan in January 1696 (translated into English)[3]:

1.Takeshima(Ulleungdo) is about 160-ri (640km) from Oki but only about 40-ri (160km) from Korea; therefore, it can be considered that Japanse Takeshima is same island as Korean Ulleungdo.(Korea claimed that Japanese Takeshima and Ullengdo is another island first)

2.Japanese are forbidden henceforth to make passage to Takeshima for the Japan-Korea friendship because the island is useless.

3.The lord of Tsushima should communicate this to Korea.--Opp2 06:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Present article and issues about the shognate's order
As for the Liancourt Rocks, however, it is unclear whether the Tokugawa Shogunate regarded the islets as Korean possessions because they were not referred to in the treaty.

• Treaty is uncertun and no source.
• "unclear" is KPOV. Though Tottori clan reported to the shognate about Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima(Ulleung-do)[4], the shognate order the prohibition of Japanese going to only Takeshima(Ulleung-do). Moreover, is the recognition of the Korea government about Liancourt Rocks clear? The Korea government never insisted on owning the island other than Takeshima(Ulleung-do) in the diplomatic negotiation. Even at the colloquy on internal of Korea government, it is only Takeshima(Ulleung-do) becoming the topic. It is unclear whether the Korea government even knew Liancourt Rocks.

The South Korean government insists that the area of "Ulleung-do" included the Liancourt rocks, as the treaty also mentioned that Japanese sailors should not travel to either island. The Japanese government insists that the Shogunate did not prohibit Japanese from sailing to the Liancourt rocks because Japanese fishers continued to fish using the islets. This was even after the prohibition on sailing to Ulleung-do.

• "Treaty" and "either island" is uncertun and no source.

Amendment bill about the the shognate's order
Though Tottori clan reported to the shognate about Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) and Takeshima(Ulleung-do)[5], the shognate did not order the prohibition of Japanese going to Matsuhima(Liancourt Rocks). On the other hand, there are no records which show the Korea government discussed about a island other than Ulleung-do and knew the Liancourt rocks. In the diplomatic negotiation between Japan and Korea, Liancourt Rocks did not become an agenda. --Opp2 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An 18th century map of Korea drawn by the Chosun court. 2 islands in the approxamite locations of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks can be seen to the east of Korea.

This is not a 18th map by the Chosun court but a 19th century map printed in Japan (it is too accurate for 18th ones). You can also find a slightly enlarged different print of the same map.[6] According to the Catalogs of historical and literal material related to Takeshima/Dokdo issue (??/???? ?·????, p. 15, #1556) by Yuji Fukuhara (The University of Shimane)[7], it is one of ???????? (Chosen Yochi Zenzu) drawn by ????? and published in 1875 (??8?) by ??????, ?????, and ?????? (you can recognize these names at the bottom left of the map). Takeshima and Matsushima in the map are actually Argonaut Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. You can see KPOV explanation of the maps in the era (in Korean) here, while Japan never recognized the islets at 37°14'N, 131°52'E (Liancourt Rocks, ???????????) that were incorporated in 1905 after reconfirmation of 1878 and 1880 naval surveys as Korean territory. Anti-KPOV explanation can be found in some of Gerry-Bevers' Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1-10, Maps Part 1-12 site. Jjok 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I overlapped this map with an actual position. [8]--Opp2 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons as to why it should stay there.

• Paldo chongdo shows the entire peninsula with two islands to the west. Why should my map be deleted?
• The caption directs the reader where the two islands are. And I'm sure most readers will look on the right spot, they have common sense.
• Assume good faith and don't delete maps simply because you don't like it. If Chosun drew a map in the 18th century with islands in the approximate locations of ulleungdo and dokdo, thats too bad. Good friend100 00:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to explain the Algonort island for NPOV if you want to post. [9][10] And, this map is a Japanese map in 1875. The era name of Japan(????) and name of Japanese mapmeker(??) and Japanese character(katakana) is being written in explanatory notes in this map. --Opp2 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Paldo chongdo shows the entire peninsula with two islands to the west. Why should my map be deleted?

Komdori explained his reasons in the edit summary. Opp2 also raised an objection to the map in the section above. I can't understand why you cannot see them.

• The caption directs the reader where the two islands are. And I'm sure most readers will look on the right spot, they have common sense.

The caption does not really direct me to any islands. I do not really understand which island you are talking about.

• Assume good faith and don't delete maps simply because you don't like it.

Please assume good faith and don't think people delete anything simply because they don't like it -- especially when they have already given an explanation. --Dwy 03:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

According to a common theory appears in Korean media, those two islands are not Korean territory since the color is different from the peninsula and same as Taemado, aren't they? So do you want to prove that Korean court recognized them as foreign territory? Jjok 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This historical inaccuracy in your Liancourt Page should be changed. I've previously commented on this mistake on your page and didn't receive response.

Your website reads: In 1677, the Japanese record Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") was compiled by Saito Hosen in 1667. Saito was a retainer of the daimyo of Izumo (sesshu) and at his lord's behest made an observation trip to Oki Island whereupon he submitted these records to his lord. The record reports the following:

Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Nowhere in Saito Hosen's 1667 report does it say "Matsushima" is the northwest boundary of Japan. It states "Thus, this "?" is the northwest boundary of Japan.

The character "?" in Kanji (chinese based-characters) means area or province. If you read the text of Saito Hosen't report he used the character "?" to denote province and used the character "?" to mean island.

In the last line of his report Saito Hosen states. "Viewing Korea from Takeshima~Matsushima is the same as viewing Oki Province from Shimae Province. This this "?" province or area markes the northern boundary of Japan.

Saito Hosen used the fact Korea was visible from Ulleungdo~Dokdo as a visual method to deem these islands as excluded from Japan not as her boundary. Why would the fact Korea was visible from Ulleungdo~Dokdo make them part of Japan?

This interpretation is also viewed by Korea Professor Shin Yong Ha in this website. http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html

On page 8 of this publication Mr Sean Fern's publication can also be seen the Professor Shin's translation that the 1667 Report on Oki should be translated to mean Oki Island was declared as Japan's boundary. http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf

Scroll down to chapter 10 on this article by Japanese Professor Hideki Kajimura and you can see some Japanese also support the Korean interpretation of the 1667 Report on Oki by Saito Hosen http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura.hwp

Here is an explanation and the original document of Saito Hosen's report. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

Here is the Japanese text, an English translation and an explanation of the document to help you understand what many Korean and Japanese historians now say is a more likely interpretation of Saito Hosen's report. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/saito-oki-text3.jpg

Please consider these changes supported by the aforementioned citations. Clownface 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If ever there is a dispute, please talk here & call others. (Wikimachine 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Your Liancourt Page has excluded some very critical material from the Dokdo Island dispute and it would be advisable to include some these historical facts to help better inform your readers about the truth of this dispute.

One fact you've left out is that when Korea was notified of Japan's annexation of Dokdo there is documented evidence that Korea already considered Dokdo part of Uldo Country (Ulleungdo) Here it is also recorded Korea objected to Japan's incorporation of Dokdo the moment she bacame aware of the fact.

Here is the document. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimheungtaek-5.jpg

Here is a translation of Ulleungdo Governor Shim Heung Taek's reaction to Japan's annexation.

'Tokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp'o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Tokdo since it is now Japanese territory..." The group included official Zinzai, of Oki Island in Shimane prefecture, Director Yoshida Meigo of the Tax Supervision Bureau, police sub-station chief, Inspector Kageyama Iwahachiro, one policeman, one local assemblyman, a doctor and a technician and about a dozen 'followers, They have come for the purpose of finding out firstly, the number of households, population, and land production, and secondly, the number of personnel and expenditure. The record having being made, we submit this report for your reference. Lunar March 5, 10th year of Kwangmu (1906)...."

In this document is also recorded the response of the Domestic Affairs Dept...

"Order No.3 by the Daehan Empires Governor I have read this report. Their word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people...." Korean newspapers of the day also protested Japan's annexation of Dokdo the moment they found out.

Here is the newspaper article that mirrored the response of the Korean government's shock and dismay. The newspaper name was the Daehanmaeilbo and the article expressing outrage was dated May 1st 1906.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/daehanilbo-article.jpg

Here is a translation of the newspapaer article. May 1st 1906 "Uldo governor Shim Heung Taek reported to the Domestic Affairs Office that some Japanese officials came to Ulluengdo Island and claimed Dokdo as Japanese territory, surveyed the island and then counted the number of households. In response to (Shim Hueng Taek's) the report, the Domestic Affairs office stated "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleungdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking...."

Some points are clear from these documents. 1. Korean officials sincerely considered Dokdo part of Korea before the Japanese annexed the island. 2. Korean officials and media opposed and contested the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo by Japan when they became aware of the fact. 3. The name Dokdo was in usage before Japan annexed Dokdo.

The information I've given you can be verified by the following articles.

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

You can also find this information on this article written by Hideiki Kojimura written for the Korea observer in Autumn of 1997. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura.hwp

The same information was written by Japanese writer in another edition of the Korean observer. The part about Korea's documented objections to Japan's annexation of Dokdo is recorded on page 21 of Kazuo Hori's "Japan's Incorporation of Dokdo" also written in Autumn 1997. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori.hwp

Mr Lovmo's website also has an article about Korea's 1906 objections. http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp16.html

BTW are you going to correct the mistake on the Saito Hosen report on Oki written in 1667? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, anytime I work on this article I'll keep that in mind. (Wikimachine 01:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

It is the first Korean official document to which the name of Dokdo was described. The name of Dokdo has come out only after Japan is notified. Shim Heung Taek's report said that Dokdo is 100 ri(40km) from Ullengdo. The Korea government did not know even an accurate distance because there were 90km actual distance. Shim Heung Taek's report is very interesting. By the way, Shim Heung Taek welcomes the investigation committee of Japan in the record of Japan.--Opp2 02:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• "1. Korean officials sincerely considered Dokdo part of Korea before the Japanese annexed the island."

This is wrong, because Shim Heung Taek's report is after Japan is notified. It cannot be retroactive at time.

• 2. Korean officials and media opposed and contested the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo by Japan when they became aware of the fact.

This is wrong, because Shim Heung Taek and Korea government never express her protest against Japan. Shim Heung Taek welcomes the investigation committee of Japan.

• 3. The name Dokdo was in usage before Japan annexed Dokdo.

This is wrong, there is no Korean official record which use the name of Dokdo before Japan notified.--Opp2 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About Saito Hosen report
Prof. Naito say follows.

??????????????????????????·?????????????????????

Even if the Oki country is a boundary in the northwest of Japan, neither Takeshima nor Matsushima become islands in Korea.

Prof. Ikeuchi say follows.

??/??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Even if Japan having recognized that Takeshima and Matsushima are outside the territories is appropriate, they do not become Korean territories.

It is uncertain how you try to retouch it. However, if you want to copy Shin Young-Ha's interpretation, I opposes. Because Saito never say that Takeshima and Matsuhima is Korean. It cannot be said a Japanese territory and the Korea territory from Saito's report. --Opp2 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp stick with the issues

You are missing the point. The issue here is the translation wikipedia has on their website is wrong. It is shameful you would oppose my suggestion that this error be changed simply because it does not support the JPOV, it shows you have no integrity and can't be trusted.

A simple fact Saito Hosen did NOT say...

"Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

Saito Hosen DID say... Oki is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima. Going further from there for two days and one night in a northwesterly direction, one reaches Matsushima. Also there is Takeshima at another day's travel. These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus, this "?" (province or region) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan.

The character "?" means province, village, or district. Saito Hosen's report was about Oki province and he consistently uses "?" to denote province and "?" to indicate islands. Saito Hosen said this region or province (Oki) marks the boundary of Japan.

Here again is the text and translation

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/saito-oki-text3.jpg

Saito Hosen's quote on the Liancourt Page must be changed simply because it is wrong. This is a separate issue of Korea's claim to Dokdo.

Opp the Korean's did voice objections to Japan's annexation this is a fact. I've given the original documents and cited other publications above. Korea never launched an official state to state objection because their foreign affairs office was under Japanese control by Durham White Stevens as of August 1904.

Opp you are again wrong about the Korean usage of the word Dokdo. The logbooks of the Japanese warship Niitaka show clearly the Koreans were using the name Dokdo at least in 1904. The fact it is a Japanese source means nothing.

Wikifolks!! You have a message written on your Liancourt Page that a citation was needed for the "koreans call this island Dokdo" information from the logbooks of the Japanese Warship Niitaka.

Here is the logbook from the Niitaka from September 25th 1904. Here it is written "Japanese call this island (Liancourt Rocks) Yangko and Koreans call it Dokdo.

Here is the original image. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/niitakadoc2.jpg

Clownface 05:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And, how do you want to change a present article? Let's present your amendment bill. "This first Japanese record on Tokdo as an official document clearly places Oki within Japan's territory, and Tokdo and Ullungdo within that of Koryo." This is an insistence of Shin Young-Ha whom you quoted. It depends whether Matsushima and Takeshima enter a Japanese territory on the interpretation of "?". I think that Ikeuchi's interpretation is appropriate. However, the interpretation of Shimojo and Kawakami cannot neglect completely. And, the interpretation of Shin'yonha can neglect completely.

• Opp the Korean's did voice objections to Japan's annexation this is a fact.territories.

There is no fact where the Korea government expressed the protest against Japan. In International Law, the governmental activity and express her protest against another country is important.

• I've given the original documents and cited other publications above.

Please show me Korean official record which shows Korea government knew the dokdo and called dokdo and controled dokdo effectively befor Japanese notification.

• The logbooks of the Japanese warship Niitaka show clearly the Koreans were using the name Dokdo at least in 1904.

I knew the record. This is Japanese record. And do the Japanese report write that "Dokdo is official name of Korean government? So, I said that there is no Korean official record. In International Law, the governmental activity is important.----Opp2 08:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"??????????????????(Korean and Japanese fisherman calls this Yanko(provincialism of "Liancourt")"[11] This is a Japanese book issued in 1903. This record will have to be described because very important for the Korean name of Liancourt Rocks and it perfectly contradicts ??'s dialect theory.--Opp2 08:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, I'm not here to debate you or wrangle on legal/law issues regarding Dokdo. This is not a courtroom, the fine folks at wikipedia will determine if my proposals for editing this page are valid, not you.

I'm here make sure relevant data is included within the pages of the Liancourt Rocks article, to help wkipedia keep this historical data accurate and of course I would like to state in detail the my stance on this issue.

Fact. The Koreans contested the Japanese seizure of Dokdo this is very important historical data. They also said Dokdo was already part of Uldo County. Let others decide how it is related to this dispute, but to not include this data would be a shame. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

Opp, Again you are arguing with yourself. I never stated Saito Hosen's Report of Oki was a valid basis for Korea to claim Dokdo. I've stated twice before Wikipedia's translation that Saito Hosen defined Matushima as Japan's Westernmost boundary is totally incorrect.

The last line of Saito Hosen's report reads. "?? ???????????...."

Of course this means "Thus this "?" (province or territory) marks the Northwestern boundary of Japan..." It does not say "Matsushma (Ulleungdo) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan, period. This inaccuracy must be corrected.

The interpretation I've given is supported by more than just Shin Yongha. I gave wikipedia two other articles published by Japanese nationals such as Kazuo Hori and Hideki Kajimura. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori.hwp

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura

At the request of the staff of wikipedia I can offer more links to citations to support the information I've given.Clownface 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• They also said Dokdo was already part of Uldo County. Let others decide how it is related to this dispute, but to not include this data would be a shame.

Please show me the evidence that you say "They also said Dokdo was already part of Uldo County". Sim Hung-t'aek report doesn't say like that. And, are you retroactive of the record in 1906? If I wrote that ? of Saito's report was an island can it be retroactive in and Edo eriod? Please show the evidence before 1906. Even the South Korean scholar also says that it is necessary to excavate specific evidence before 1905.[12]

• The Korea government and Korean historian did not know Liancourt Rocks in 1899. [13]
• In the Ullengdo investigation by the Korea government in 1900, there is no report concerning Liancourt Rocks. *Korean Government Imperial Ordinance 41 is enforcemented based on this Ullengdo investigation.
• The Korean was calling the yanko until 1903.
• After 1903, the Korean began to name the dokdo.
• The government official in Shimane tells incorporation of Liancourt Rocks to Sim Hung-taek(Korean officer of Ullengdo) in 1906. The Japanese government official was welcomed, and Sim Hung-taek was not protested about incorporation.
• After Japanese government official returned Japan. Sim Hung-taek reported to central government that Dokdo is Korean terrytory. This is the first record of the Korean government called Dokdo. And the grounds and reasons of Sim Hung-taek's insistence is uncertain.
• A famous Korean clerisy didnot contain Liancourt Rocks in the Korean territory in 1907.[14]

This list is aligned according to the time series. When did Korean government say that Dokdo was already part of Uldo County?--Opp2 09:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• This inaccuracy must be corrected.

"Inaccuracy" is inaccuracy. It is accurate that the possibility of Shimojo theory will be low. Because it is a problem of the interpretation. ? is used in the meaning of the country in other examples of ???. However, isn't there possibility to use as an island only for Matsushima and Takeshima? Saito is not clearly describing about ??, and it depends on the analogy from other examples. And, it is an inference. Therefor the interpretation of Shimojo cannot neglect completely. By the way, I am supporting the Ikeuchi theory about the interpretation of ??????. --Opp2 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp what are you talking about? You said "Please show me the evidence that you say "They also said Dokdo was already part of Uldo County".Sim Hung-taek report doesn't say like that.."

In response to the Japanese announcement they had annexed Dokdo Shim Heung Taek stated "Tokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county..." It is clear, regardless of the distance given that Shim Heung Taek considered Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) part of Uldo County. It is also clear the island was named Dokdo before the Japanese annexed the island.

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

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp16.html

For the 3rd time Opp................(sigh) Saito Hosen's Report on Oki does not state "And thus Matsushima (Ulleung-do) marks the northwestern boundary of Japan...“

Saito Hosen's report on Oki in 1667 states "And thus this "?" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan...."

The sentence prior to that Saito Hosen states "These two islands are uninhabited and viewing Goryeo from there is like viewing Oki from Onshu. And thus this "?" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan..."

Please tell me how two islands a full days travel and 90 kms apart from each other in a straight line away can become a boundary. Also please explain how "these two islands" were stated as "Matsushima" in Wkiipedia's interpretation of the 1667 document? It's clear this interpretation of Saito Hosen's report was spoon fed to Wikipedia from a JPOV source.

Look at this map and tell me how "these two islands" (Ulleungdo and Dokdo) could mark the northwestern boundary of Japan. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-coastmap1.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

• In response to the Japanese announcement they had annexed Dokdo Shim Heung Taek stated "Tokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county..."

Hi, toadface. Did Shim Heung Taek say that Dokdo had already belonged? He never say when and why dokdo belonged to Korea. An inaccurate distance(100ri, 40km) might have been the only his grounds. Please show me the evidence that dokdo belong to Korea before Japan notified. Please show me the evidence of your original interpretation about Shim Heung Taek's internal report.--Opp2 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please tell me how two islands a full days travel and 90 kms apart from each other in a straight line away can become a boundary.

?? And, how do you want to retouch it? Please present your amendment bill. Your original interpretation seems to be different from Prof. Ikeuchi and Naito and Shimojyo and Tagawa.

• ??=Oki state(Oki islands), Matsuhima and Takeshima is Korean territory: Prof. Shin Young-Ha
• ??=Oki state(Oki islands), Matsuhima and Takeshima is terra nullius: Prof. Ikeuchi, Naito
• ??=Takeshima(Ulleungdo), Matsuhima and Takeshima is Japanese territory: Prof. Shimojyo, Tagawa

Who is interpreting ?? as "two islands"? Are you objecting for the insistence that doesn't exist? Do you want to say that Prf.Shimojyo write "?? is two islands"? Do you think that subjects of "??????????" are two islands? Does the subject of ???? transcend the sentence and do it become a subject?--Opp2 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan never once included Dokdo as part of Shimane Prefecture before they annexed Dokdo in 1905. No national maps or prefecture maps of Japan show Dokdo as part of Japan prior to the islands annexation. We can also see that these maps included minor islands near the Japanese coast such as Minoshima. These maps are useful data for wikipedia.

Shimane Prefecture 1876 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Asano-Meido-1876.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1878 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Dokdoless-Shimane.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1881 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1881-Shimane.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1891 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-1895.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1895 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-dokdoless.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1897 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1897-Shimane-prefecture2.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1899 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-1899.jpg

Shimane Prefecture 1903 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-1903.jpg

These maps of Shimane Prefecture are clear evidence Japan consistently omitted both ??-Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and ??-Matsushima from Japanese territory before the island was annexed in 1905. Thus we know Dokdo was not considered Japanese territory prior to 1905 when the Japanese military annexed the island

I hope these maps can help wikipedia improve the quality of the information they provide to their readers.

124.80.111.184 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these free images? (Wikimachine 16:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm afraid I don't know the origin of all of these images. I can see the stamp from David Rumsey's Collection at Berkeley University on one map, I pretty sure are copyrighted. Others I've gathered from all over the net second hand through newspaper articles and some from Hanmaumy's Korean website.

Some 19th Century maps of Shimane can be located at Hanmaumy's Shimane Prefecture Map page. His website offers some of the best information on the Dokdo dispute on the internet. He usually allows images to be passed on from him. But again I really have no idea as to the original source of all the maps.

http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/DokdoMapJapan04.htm

Here is another map that is well known within the Dokdo community. It clearly shows both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) within Chosun territory on an appended map of Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/mori-kinseki.jpg

Here is a close up. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Mori-kinseki2.jpg

And again a little closer. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Mori-kinseki3.jpg

That map was from David Rumsey's website and may be subject to copyright. But the map has been on many Korean news articles before.

That map shows the more westerly locations of Ulleungdo and Dokdo that resulted from Mr Seibold's maps. But it is clear by other maps despite this westerly locations the Japanese still considered Takeshima as Ulleungdo and Matsushima as Dokdo, even though the location was wrong.

This map shows how Mr Seibold copied European maps and gave these inaccurate locations the Japanese names Takeshima and Matushima. From there the Japanese copied his maps. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seilbold1840.jpg

This map shows Takeshima~Matsushima far west as well. Notice the island is labelled "Korean name Ulleungdo, Japanese name Takeshima. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg

Hope this helps..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Here is another map that is well known within the Dokdo community. It clearly shows both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) within Chosun territory on an appended map of Japan. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/mori-kinseki.jpg

Do you think that this is present Liancourt Rocks? [15] You seem not to know Liancourt Rocks's correct position. Does you try to be concealed important information, and misled the reader why? [16] [17]--Opp2 01:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, Yes, I know the position of Liancourt Rocks (??) and Ulleungdo (??) is more westerly. This does not change the identity of the islands as you wrongfully imply on your website.

The island you label as "fabled Argonaut" on your page is what the Japanese cartographers called Takeshima (Ulleungdo). The other island is simply Matsushima/Dagelet (Dokdo) drawn in Ulleungdo's correct location.

What we have is simply an error of island location that stemmed from the incorrect double-mapping of Ulleungdo (Argonaut) island by James Collnet in 1789. He wrongfully mapped Ulleungdo at around 129.50 degrees. A Frechman La Parouse also found Ulleungdo, named in Dagelet and located it correctly at around 130.56 degrees of longitude.

So, what we had was Ulleungdo double mapped in two different locations. See this map.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Marzollabendetto1847.jpg

From there a European man who resided in Japan took these incorrect maps and copied them. Mr Seibold labelled the fictitious Argonaut Island as Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and labelled Dagelet as Matsushima (Dokdo) Mr Seibold changed the territorial perceptions of the Japanese by giving Argonaut and Dagelet the names Takeshima and Matsushima respectively.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seilbold1840.jpg

What this means is, even though we now know Argonaut was fictitious, the Japanese at this time sincerely believed Takeshima and Matsushima were more westerly.

This can be proven by Japanese maps that show Ulleungdo labelled as "Takeshima in Japanese and Ulleungdo in Korean such as these maps.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg http://dokdo-takeshima.com/so-mokan.jpg

This map shows the same incorrect positioning of Ulleungdo. However we can see the Japanese text of Saito Hosens "Viewing Korea from here is the same as viewing Oki Island from Onshu."

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/uchida.jpg Compare with this map that shows the same text but drawn decades before this era of locational errors.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg

So Opp your premise has some serious flaws. On your website you imply that Japan knowingly mapped a fictitious island (Argonaut Island) and omitted an island (Matsushima) that they had consistenly mapped in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) for at least a century (Matsushima).

Any logical person can see the Japanese simply mapped Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) more Westerly. The Japanese mapped 2 islands in the East Sea. (clownface)Clownface 04:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You should be able to overlap these maps with an actual position.[18] Latitude and the longitude of the Algonort island have already been known. Takeshima in the map of Japan is completely corresponding to the position of Algonort island. As for Matsushima, it is similar. Latitude and the longitude of Dagelet island that France had measured were known. Matsushima in the map of Japan is completely corresponding to the position of Dagelet island. Takeshima accurately corresponding to the position of the Algonort island is judged to be a property of Korea. Did it do please? What do you want to say? Even if you want to deny the fact, it is impossible. Please do not move the island for your hope. Japanese Takeshima at that time is Algonort island.--Opp2 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp. read again. Nobody denies Japan mapped Takeshima in Argonaut's location.

We are not dazzled to the point of stupidity by your funky flashy effects nor by your superimposing Google Earth on 19th Century maps......this is all just smoke and mirrors. In short, you are not taking a very academic approach at all.

What you are trying to do is change the identity of the islands based on their location. This is wrong.

Throughout history Japan mapped Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) in different places.

For example, if you study some of the earliest Japanese maps of Takeshima and Matsushima, you will notice the islands are positioned closer (Easterly) to Japan.

Here is an example.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Nagakubo-sekisui-1783.jpg

And yet another.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kikuchi-toramatsu-1843-border.jpg

This map shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo with serious location flaws but again Takeshima is Ulleungdo and Matsushima is Dokdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-1.jpg

Some Japanese maps show the islands in these strange locations but we can't randomly change what they represent to suit your political agenda Opp.

Another misconception on your website has to do with maps showing three islands. You assert Japanese still considered Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as fictitious Argonaut. This is very wrong Opp.

This is the map you have on your page. Notice the outline of Takeshima is drawn as a dotted line. This indicates the presence of this land mass was "P.D" or doubtful. Even in 1867 the Japanese doubted Argonaut's presence by this time.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanesenavymap.jpg

We also know the Japanese Navy did not draw her own maps, they sourced their information from the British Navy who were then staunch allies of the Japanese.. If we look at the British Navy's map we also see the same land mass "Argonaut-Takeshima" drawn in a dotted line and labelled as P.D or "presence doubted" This map is the original from which the Japanese copied the aforementioned map above.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg

It's clear, on these three island maps, made by both Western and Japanese cartographers Matushima (now Ulleungdo) is drawn clearly and has adjacent rocks labelled in precise detail and Argonaut (Takeshima) becomes a vaguely scrawled "ghost island" because its existence was confirmed as nill.

Argonaut island was deemed non-existent by Europeans at different times. The French knew by 1852, The Russians knew by 1854 and the English were well aware by 1859 as recorded by the British warship Actaeon.Clownface 06:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Clownface:In short, you are not taking a very academic approach at all.

Do you say that the comparison with an actual position in the verification of the map is not academic? It is very strange. Do you deny the function of the map? The map is a picture which is reduced real geography. You seem to live in the original world. In the judicial precedent of palmas, the old map is verified by comparison of an actual geography. Takeshima at that time is corresponding to the Algonort island. Matsushima at that time is accurately corresponding to Dagelet island. Therefore, Japan admitted Dagelet and the Algonort island as a Korean territory. Because it is an island different from Liancourt Rocks, it doesn't become any evidence concerning Liancourt Rocks. This is a standard that can be used even by international court of justice.

Clownface:Throughout history Japan mapped Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) in different places.

This is correct before information on the Algonort island is imported.

Clownface:http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-1.jpg

This is a map of Shimane Prefecture. Shimane Prefecture was naming Liancourt Rocks as Matsushima. And, did a central government of Japan share the recognition of Shimane? [19] This is a map of Home office in 1881. Home office is not using information on Shimane.

Clownface:Some Japanese maps show the islands in these strange locations but we can't randomly change what they represent to suit your political agenda Opp.

Do you refuse the function of the map for your political message?

Clownface:The French knew by 1852, The Russians knew by 1854 and the English were well aware by 1859 as recorded by the British warship Actaeon.

Do though the geography recognition of Japan is important? Cannot you do a logical idea? As for your insistence, strange logic is required as follows.

• Because Britain also had known, all of Japanese should also have known.
• A central government of Japan should also have same recognation as Shimane.

It differs from the present age that can be confirmed with the satellite photograph at once. They who produced the map must choose various information. There was no device to verify which information was correct for them. The accurate information didn't spread immediately at that time. You are denying even the function of the map by generalizing a part of recognition. Please don't deny even the function of the map for your political insistence. The information of the map(position, shape, and size of the land) proves the geography recognition of the person who made the map. This function of maps is same as all ages and coutries except you.--Opp2 07:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Clownface:It clearly shows both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) within Chosun territory on an appended map of Japan.[20]

(Dokdo) is your political insistence without logic. Cannot you read the map? Do you deny the function of the map? This matsushima present Ulleungdo. This map proves that.[21] In your logic, Matsushima of all Japanese document at that time should be present Liancourt Rocks. This is an instruction of the Dajokan in 1883.[22] Do you think this Matsushima is Liancourt Rocks? Why do Japan call Ulleungdo Matsuhima?--Opp2 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is internal material of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1878.[23]

????????????????????????????????????????????????????(Therefore, if this so called "Matsushima" is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them(Korea). If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.)

• "The Matsushima is not Takeshima(Ulleungdo)" means Liancourt Rocks because the island which is nearer Japan than Ulleungdo is only Liancourt Rocks. This shows that the name of Matsushima used for Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks cleary.

The island name of Matsushima has the possibility of Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks. The position and the size of the island are completely corresponding to the Algonort island and Ulleungdo.[24] What are grounds that you presumed this Matsushima to Liancourt Rocks? It is very easy logic. Because the Japanese island name was confused, the island cannot be decided from the island name like you. --Opp2 12:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, maps made by Europeans are crucial to determine the territorial perceptions of the 19th Century Japanese cartographers and thus politicians. It is a verifiable fact that Japanese copied (often blindly) maps made by Europeans. Otherwise this whole mess would have never occurred. Thus it's safe to say what the Europeans half way around the world knew, so did the Japanese

This shows how little you know about 19th Century cartography. Mapmakers of this era did not base their information from surveys. Islands were rarely drawn by correct shape or form.

19th Century maps were by and large copied from a cartographers pool of resources they could gather look at the shape and form of the island on these three maps. In particlar Dagelet~Matushima

First a European map of Argonaut~Dagelet. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Marzollabendetto1847.jpg

Next Seibolds map. Showing Dagelet labellled as Matsushima. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seilbold1840.jpg

Lastly a Japanese map made in 1872 http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchida.jpg

The source of the Japanese errors above is clear. However, the identity of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) never changes. In fact as I've pointed out Takeshima is frequently labelled as Ulleungdo in Korean.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg

Opp, here is the document you posted again. http://photoimg.enjoyjapan.naver.com/view/enjoybbs/viewphoto/phistory/80000/20070329117516920766518500.jpg

This document states Matsushima ??, (????) also called Takeshima and below is written Chosun's (Korea's) Ulleungdo. What this shows in fact is before 1880, the Japanese called Ulleungdo Takeshima. The name of Ulleungdo changed when it was learned the islands were located improperly.

Documents that declare Takeshima and Matsushima excluded from Japan and part of Chosun both predate Japan's Ulleungdo's name changing to Matsushima AND have historical references that make clear the Takeshima in these documents is in fact the Takeshima disputed during the Genruko Era (ie Anyongbok Incident)

That leaves the question what was Matsushima on all of these maps that show Ulleungdo as Takeshima?

Well you Opp, have been trying to forcefully lead us to the silly conclusion that Japanese map makers knowingly drew 2 Ulleungdoes and excluded Dokdo because the name Liancourt Rocks doesn't appear. This is dead wrong Opp and your website will need more than funky flashing disco effects and Google Earth to put us under your spell.

The only logical conclusion as I've stated is both islands were simply placed in more westerly locations. I hope this helps you understand Opp.

Clownface 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Clownface:What this shows in fact is before 1880, the Japanese called Ulleungdo Takeshima.

What is the reason to call Ulleungdo Matsushima? Is there a reason that is not the change in the island name? Please present the reason and evidence.

Clownface:However, the identity of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) never changes.

This is internal material of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1878.[25] Do not you see this? It is evidence of change. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time is admitted to have changed. Record of Japan at that time and your political presumption without specific evidence. Well, which can be adopted as evidence? Even if you use dirty words, it doesn't become help of the persuasiveness of your insistence. Thank you.--Opp2 13:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the document you cite above is one of the entries into Japan's investigation of Takeshima, (the name of the report itself is proof of what Japanese most frequently called Ulleungdo in 1878) It is one opinion of many regarding the mapping confusion of the day.

Japan conducted an investigation into Takeshima to find out if any other islands existed in the East Sea because of increasing development proposals by Japanese who were infringing on Ulleungdo Island. This was also prompted by the European maps which showed three islands in the East Sea.

When we view maps or read documents from the 19th Century we must do so on a case by case basis. Let me give you an example. This 1870 document declares both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Chosun since the island was "ceded" during the Anyongbok Incident of 1696. Because of this historical reference Takeshima is Ulleungdo, Matsushima cannot be Ulleungdo here because it is described as a neighbour island of Ulleungdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html

There are no maps of this era that show Takeshima as Ulleungdo and include Liancourt Rocks, thus your theory does not apply. Maps with three islands show Ulleungdo as Matsushima.

The other document that kills Japan's claim to Dokdo is the 1877 Inquiry into Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and "the other island" This too shows that Japan didn't consider any islands outside of the Okinoshimas as part of Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html

The attached map to this document clearly shows Ulleungdo in correct form, and has Matsushima (Dokdo) drawn as two islands.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-1.jpg

Here is a closeup.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-2.jpg

From these documents Japan clearly excluded both Ulleungdo and Matsushima (Dokdo) from her territory. To clear up any remaining doubt about the possibilty of any other islands in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) Japan conducted another survey in 1880 by the ship Amagi.

The bottom line is this Opp. When Japan cleared up what few doubts remained by those less informed like Watanabe Kuoki all development proposals for the area were refused.

What's even more important Opp is all Japanese maps be it national or prefecture did not show Takeshima, Matsushima, or Liancourt Rocks as part of either Shimane Prefecture or Japan.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html

Oki Island was declared the boundary of Japan in 1667 and it remained such until greedy Japanese expansionist annexed the island in 1905. Clownface 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are some maps showing Japan's military involvement on the Korean peninsula and it shows how Dokdo was integrated into Japan's warplan during the Russo~Japanese War.

These maps were obtained from Japan Center for Asian Historical Archives and are public property.

This 1905 Japanese Navy map shows the Korean peninsula and Liandong Peninsula notice how Dokdo is integrated into Japan's military telegraph systems.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg

This 1905 Japanese military map shows Korea's Ulleungdo Island. You can see the Japanese Navy watchtower locations and the location of military telegraph wires that were linked to Dokdo to the East and Jukpyeon~Ulsan on Korea.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire3.jpg

This map was the defence plan for Japan dated January 5th 1905 this is before Japan annexed Dokdo. Notice how Liancourt Rocks and vicinity was zoned and designated to a specific naval regimental zone.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/warzonemap2.jpg

These are Japanese Navy maps of Dokdo. The first was a map of Dokdo drawn by the Niitaka in September of 1904. He declared the island was suitable for building (military) structures.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/niitakadoc3.jpg

These are the orders given to the warship Tsushima on November 13th 1904 to survey Liancourt Rocks for installation of underwater telegraph (not wireless) lines. The Tsushima was also ordered to finish watchtower work on Ulleungdo, Jukpyeong and Ulsan Korea.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/tsushimadoc6.jpg

Here is a Japanese naval survey map of Liancourt Rocks. These were prior to the annexation of Dokdo. You can see it shows the range of visiblity from given points on the islands. This was because the Japanese Navy was planning watchtower installation here.

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

These are Japanese naval survey maps of Dokdo done by the Japanese Imperial warship Hashidate they were taken immediately after the Japanese defeated the Russians in the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905. They show the best location for observation posts and underwater telegraph lines.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navymap3.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navymap2.jpg

Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of the colonization of Korea and their militaristic ambitions on the Korean peninsula and other parts of Asia such as Port Arthur (now Lushun and Dalian).

I hope this information help clear up why Japan annexed Dokdo when they did.Clownface 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Luckily none of this is at all relevant. Wikipedia is not an international court of law. We are here to document a well-sourced and NPOV history of Liancourt, not support your nationalistic speculations. 24.91.16.229 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

His insistence is not based on International Law. Because construction and the maintenance of military facilities without a protest by another countries are admited as evidences of peaceful effective control in the International law. I think he want to prove Japanese peaceful effective control.--Opp2 02:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster above. If "we" are here to discuss the history of Liancourt why don't you contribute something to this thread? And are you to decide what is relevant?

My nationalist speculations?? What is that supposed to mean? I'm neither Japanese nor Korean. Take the time to read what I've posted instead of blathering away.

My first point was the historical reference Wikipedia has with regard to Saito Hosen's 1667 report of Oki is an incorrect translation. I gave a translation, various citations from authors on the subject and even an original image of the document itself. Is that "NPOV" for you?

The other images are original maps and documents from the 19th Century that shows Japan did not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo within her territory. These are very useful data for Wikipedia as these images are as "NPOV" as you can get and again relevant to the history of Liancourt Rocks.

Wikipedia's historical information on Liancourt Rocks has some serious errors and is missing some critical data. They should correct these errors if they want to be considered credible. The historical inaccuracies here go beyond either J or K POV.

Opp are still trying to pretend you're an international hotshot lawyer again? That's funny!!Clownface 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• My first point was the historical reference Wikipedia has with regard to Saito Hosen's 1667 report of Oki is an incorrect translation.

Anyone didnnot interpret like you. Who is interpreting ?? as "two islands"?

• Opp are still trying to pretend you're an international hotshot lawyer again?

Sorry. It is writing in the judicial precedent. It differs from your original rule.

Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards(P.C.A., 1998-1999)
In order to examine the performance of jurisdictional acts on the Islands, the Tribunal must consider evidence of activities on the land territory of the Islands as well as acts in the water surrounding the Islands. This evidence includes: landing parties on the Islands; the establishment of military posts on the Islands; the construction and maintenance of facilities on the Islands; the licensing of activities on the land of the Islands; the exercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of happenings on the Islands; the construction or maintenance of lighthouses; the granting of oil concessions; and limited life and settlement on the Islands.

Thank you.--Opp2 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you've missed the point again. The issue is not whether or not Japan expressed sovereignty over Takeshima. The issue is whether Japan's basis for establishing effective control over Dokdo was legal within the framework of international law AND the terms of surrender Japan agreed to after WWII. (ie Cairo Convention and Potsdam Declaration)

Please before you quote law Opp, I would like to know some of your legal credentials. Can you please tell us which law school you went to? I'd really like to know. How can I trust your legal information if you don't tell us where you studied? Please tell us...

Do you think anyone will support Japan's claim to Takeshima when they realize their one and only claim to the island was a military annexation at the height of the largest war to the day? I seriously doubt even if Japan could prove it was legal within the framework of 19th Century law they could muster any support at all. (except for a few wacky Japanese right wing extremists)

Anyway, I've almost finished Part II of Japan's Takeshima X Files series. The rest of the world can see the truth behind Japan's claim to Takeshima.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Opp, For the fourth time now. Saito Hosen did not say "Matsushima marks the Northwest boundary of Japan as Wikipedia states. He said "this "?" or province as you know.Clownface 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is whether Japan's basis for establishing effective control over Dokdo was legal within the framework of international law

Yes, of course legal. I have showed the judicial precedent without bias. Can you see it?

• I would like to know some of your legal credentials.

“Eritrea – Yemen” was written by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Sorry, I did not write it.

• Anyway, I've almost finished Part II of Japan's Takeshima X Files series.

Thank you for proving the Japanese effective control. However, please don’t forget the license of the sea dog catching on the Liancourt Rocks and the registration to the cadastre of Shimane prefecture because these are admitted as evidences of effective control in the international law too. --Opp2 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp I'm still waiting to hear your credentials in the field of law.... Do you really think anybody cares about the legal theories of someone who has no formal education in this area?

As I've pointed out. Whether or not Japan has a legal case is not up to you or me. However, now that I'm showing that Japan's claim to Dokdo is based on a military appropriation and has no historical foundation who really cares about Japan's claim anyway. This is clearly why no other nations support Japan's claim Opp..Clownface 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• However, now that I'm showing that Japan's claim to Dokdo is based on a military appropriation

Please don’t forget the license of the sea dog catching on the Liancourt Rocks and the registration to the cadastre of Shimane prefecture because these are admitted as evidences of effective control in the international law too.

• This is clearly why no other nations support Japan's claim

??? Japan doesn't need your support which is based on your original rule because Internatinal law support Japanese tite. Thank you.--Opp2 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Credentials Opp. I'm still waiting. Clownface 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
When you prove the following, I may think.

• Your degree concerning history science.
• Your degree concerning Japanese language.
• Your degree concerning Chinese classics.
• An evidence which proves that you are a delegation of World nations

Tank you. --Opp2 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the difference is I don't pretend to be any of the above you list. The translations on my website were sourced from either educated professionals I've paid or cited publications. Unlike you, I don't launch personal attacks on those who are more qualified than I.

So it seems you are not a lawyer. Finally you admit that. Thus your legal theories are little more than opinions of a layman. With that in mind I cant' believe you have the brass balls to launch a personal attack on an a REAL Law Professor (Myung-Ki Kim) such as you do here.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/

Go to school, get a law degree and then we will listen to your definitions of law, "professor" Opp.Clownface 13:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Please prove your interpretation of historical material(Japanese and Chinese classics) to be correct. For instance, there is no scholar who is insisting like you about Saito's book. Thank you.--Opp2 14:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, the only insistence I've consistently made on this thread is to clarify that Saito Hosen did not say. "Thus, Matsushima is the northwest bounday of Japan" as Wiki says on their Liancourts Page. He said this "?" is the boundary. This is fact, not subject to interpretation at all.

There are many professors who agree with me that Saito Hosen's 1667 Report on Oki declared Oki Island as the Northwest boundary of Japan. If you want citations just ask. Clownface 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is interpreting ?? as "two islands"? This is your logic for negation of the interraption of ?? as "Matsuhima". Please prove your interpretation of historical material(Japanese and Chinese classics) to be correct.----Opp2 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Clownface, I wonder, if you are neither Japanese nor Korean as you say, why you are claiming the ability to read medieval Japanese and interpret a text better than accomplished scholars. Speaking as a second-year Japanese student, the way you divide up kanji is a little ridiculous. 24.91.16.229 04:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster above, I'm not claiming to be an expert on medieval text. I'm simply making know the incorrect translation on the wikipedia page above. The mistakes I'm pionting out can be verified by the citations above. Here are the Japanese authors who support this fact. I can give you more citations from other authors if you wish.

1. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/kazuo-hori.hwp

2. http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hideki-kajimura

Again, this interpretation is not mine but accepted by many Koreans and Japanese alike.

Again I reiterate for you Opp.

The last line of Saito Hosen's text says. Thus this "?" marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.

It does not say "Thus, Matsushima marks the northwest boundary of Japan.." as Wikipedia says. Here is the original document itself.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito2.jpg

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/saito1.jpg

Please show me where it says "Thus, Matsushima marks the Northwest boundary of Japan" Wikipedia's translation is dead wrong. 124.80.117.107 05:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:Thus this "?" marks the Northwest boundary of Japan.

Yes. Therefor some scholers say this "?" is Oki state and some scholers say this "?" is a island(Takeshima:Ulleunddo). No one say that this "?" is two islands(Matsuhima and Takeshima) like you.

• Clownface:Please tell me how two islands a full days travel and 90 kms apart from each other in a straight line away can become a boundary.

This your rebuttal is inconsequence. And, how do you want to correct?--Opp2 11:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
INTEPRETATION ABOUT SAITO'S BOOK IS HERE.

• Clownface:I'm wondering Why you have some kind of problem understanding what I'm saying?

It is simple. Your insistant is based on your original rule.

• Clownface:Saito Hosen says this "?" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. It does not say "Matsushima" marks the boundary of Japan.

Therefore, how do you want to retouch? Do you want to describe both theories? Do you write that the interpretation that Takeshima(Ulleung-do) is a Korean territory is impossible too? --Opp2 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:I cant' believe you have the brass balls to launch a personal attack on an a REAL Law Professor (Myung-Ki Kim) such as you do here.

You need not believe me. You only have to believe the original source which was quoted by this dipsy scholer.
EXAMPLE OF A IMPROPER QUOTATION BY THIS DIPSY KOREAN SCHOLER

Original text of "A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by William E. Hall"

The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded. Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.

France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.

The dipsy scholer's quotation about Hall [26] p321

As Westlake, William E. Hall also argues that “the Act of Berlin” is not only valid for the contracting parties, but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says :

an agreement, made between all the state which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule

Though the meaning changes completely, why do the dipsy scholer omit the word of "Nevertheless" ? Did the dipsy scholer make a mistake in the quotation though the explanation by the case was attached? Hall deny the notification as a view of a principle and obligation. Prof. Daijyudo also is pointing out this dipsy scholer's improper quotation. --Opp2 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that both countries are claiming the island as theirs..but what are their evidences? Can anybody like enlighten me on the subject..cuz i hav no clue. I think the korean side of the argument is that they shud hav it back because JApan had to give back all territories to korea after the surrender..but what's the japanese side of the argument? Korea missed a document or sth?

Lunaholik 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)lunaholikLunaholik 05:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Only Japan can renounce Japanese territory. The United States, Allies, and South Korea cannot acquisition Japanese territory without the consent of Japan.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW by Ian Brownlie
ADMINISTRATON AND SOVEREIGNTY
It may happen that the process of government over an area, with the concomitant privileges and duties, falls into the hands of another state. Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of German state did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to existence. The very considerable derogation of sovereignty involved in the assumption of powers of government by foreign states, without the consent of Germany, did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. A similar case, recognized by the customary law for a very long time, is that of the belligerent occupation of enemy territory in time of war. The important features of 'sovereignty' in such cases are the continued existence of legal personality and the attribution of territory to that legal person and not to holders for the time being.

"JApan had to give back" is not evidences but Korean wish and presumption. Korean wish is not important. It is important whether Japan renounced Takeshima. The insistence of Japan is that Japan didn't renounce her title of Takeshima after the surrender.--Opp2 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, seriously. I'm wondering Why you have some kind of problem understanding what I'm saying? Are you Ok?

Wikipedia's translation is wrong. Saito Hosen says this "?" marks the northwestern boundary of Japan. It does not say "Matsushima" marks the boundary of Japan.

When you finally understand the simple sentence I've repeated six times, maybe we can talk law.

The Takeshima X-files page 2 is done now. I hope you enjoy it!!

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Please enjoy and learn about the shameful truth of Japan's military annexation of Dokdo. Korea will never allow this to happen again OppClownface 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts which prove japanese effective control. But even it is unrelated this time. Present subject is whether Japan renounced Takeshima after the surrender. I think you canot understand the subject. You only play havoc with this subsection. If you want to talk about your original interpretation of Saito's book, please talk above your subsection.--Opp2 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence

'Japanese scholars interpret the latter part as "come into view [from mainland Korea]" in the context of the whole text.{ { Fact | date = June 2007 } }'

is moved from the article because it is not verified since 4 June 2007. Jtm71 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. I apologize for my incursion. Odst 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that Japan has no current administration on that Island. wouldn't it be appropriate to remove Japan as an administer to Dokdo? It would make much more sense to consider the liancourt rocks a claimed islet, not a territory under the administration of Japan. Odst 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence is KPOV. Because Japan insist present occupation by Korea is illegal. The protest and registration in the cadaster are one of the important exercises of sovereignty and administration on International Law. It would make much more sense to consider the liancourt rocks a claimed islet, a territory under the one-sided occupation by Korea despite Japan's protests.--Opp2 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

However, It must be acknowledged that the current administration powers are held by The South Korean Government, whether or not the Liancourt rocks are rightfully theirs. both South Korea and Japan claim the Liancourt rocks as their territory, But South Korea controls it, at least for now, and maybe forever. A reader new to the subject might find that at first, very confusing. Odst 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not having administration on the island doesn't not mean not having administration. Liancourt Rocks would include the sea around it for administration purposes. Including Japan as an administration gives important information for readers to understand that Japan regards Liancourt Rocks as part of a particular prefecture. The text already makes it clear that Korea at present 'occupies' the islands. Occupation ? Administration. Make a new occupation 'box' if you wish but leave the administration as is. Macgruder 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, My insistence was not KPOV. I would like to consider myself neutral. Odst 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to emphasize one-sided occupation by Korea, it is necessary to emphasize the protests by Japan for NPOV because the protest has a legal effect to make the occupation meaningless--Opp2 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp. Japan signed treaties that clearly excluded Dokdo from Japan's territory. NO further directives were issued on the status of Dokdo by the allies and the SF Peace Treaty was concluded at this state. America and the allies were legally empowered to act as Japan's agent in the due process of defining the nation of Japan's international boundaries and included minor islands.

Japan could not and can never exercise sovereignty again because they are not legally empowered to. They signed off these right to exercise sovereignty under the terms of surrender in 1945. Japan misinterprets the omission of Dokdo in the SF Peace Treaty to mean Japan is again granted sovereignty. This is false because there are many other minor islands Japan exercised authority over during the occupation that were released from Japan's control after the liberation of Korea. Without exercising any soveignty comes the loss of "effective control" without effective control or any sovereignty how Japan continue to claim title?

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ww2.html

Opp I'm glad you finally acknowledge that Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an act of military aggression. Then we can see Japan's occupation was illegal under the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. Paragraph 2 of the Cairo Convention and Artilce 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. "Japan must be expelled from all territories taken by violence or greed.." Is a quote from the Cairo Convention and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration.

So you see Opp, Japanese military aggression does negate Japan's title to Dokdo as well.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

Yes Opp, Japan's military activities are evidence of effective control. The trouble is these activities were firstly NOT part of a natural "peaceful" process that the ICJ demands territorial acquisitions be. Second they were illegal under peace agreements Japan was legally obligated to be expelled from under stipulations of both the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration.

Opp, the colonial era is over and with it died Japan's miltiary land grabs she gained during this time. You must accept this and move on. It is not a bad thing for Korea to have Dokdo. Korea is the most proximal land that has verifiably lived within visual distance of Dokdo 1000 years (512 AD) before the first Japanese accidentally stumbled upon Ulleungdo in 1618.124.80.112.73 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP!! Cannot you understand the subject of the subpart? The subject of this part is whether to describe only present one-sided occupation by Korea. Here is not a place where your fantasy novel and your original rule about territtorial title without objective judicial precedent is written.--Opp2 07:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

124.80.112.73 This is a just a POV rant. Find your legitimate sources etc etc.Macgruder 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop yerself Opp!!

Read what I've written again. The fact is Japan has no right to attempt to exercise administration over Dokdo at all Opp. Japan's right to sovereignty were eliminated when she signed peace treaties that clearly excluded Dokdo from the definition of what constituted the nation of Japan.

Without the legal consent of the allied nations (who were acting as legal agents of the nation of Japan's international affairs) Japan cannot claim title or exercise jurisdiction over Dokdo. Korea as a sovereign nation and also not signatory to the SF Peace Treaty or Japan's terms of surrender thus not subject to these binding agreements at all Opp.

In addition the administration of territory must be continuous which Japan has failed to do for well over 50 years now.

Under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that Japan signed any disputes she has with the interpretation of this treaty can be brought before the ICJ by Japan.Clownface 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. But this POV stuff belongs on your blog not Wikipedia. Find a respected source. Macgruder 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Opp I'm glad you finally acknowledge that Japan's annexation of Dokdo was an act of military aggression.

International Law admits maintenance of military posts without protest by another countries as the peaceful effective control.

Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards(P.C.A., 1998-1999) In order to examine the performance of jurisdictional acts on the Islands, the Tribunal must consider evidence of activities on the land territory of the Islands as well as acts in the water surrounding the Islands. This evidence includes: landing parties on the Islands; the establishment of military posts on the Islands; the construction and maintenance of facilities on the Islands; the licensing of activities on the land of the Islands; the exercise of criminal or civil jurisdiction in respect of happenings on the Islands; the construction or maintenance of lighthouses; the granting of oil concessions; and limited life and settlement on the Islands.

In this judicial precedent, this standard is applied to the examination in the latter half of the 20th century. Is it in invalidity when? Please present not your wish but an objective judicial precedent. In addition, Japan have the evidence of the sea lion hunting based on the license and landing by the party of Shimane prefecture. Thank you.--Opp2 11:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp what you have is another cut-and-paste unrelated snippet of rubbish from your tired bag of tricks. The information you have is just proof of jurisdiction what is at issue here something different.

You are confused again. We are not talking about acts that are displays of juridiction we are talking about legal basis for territorial land claim.

Land annexations initiated to assert military during a war (Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905) control constitute acts of aggression. These are not a legal basis for title under both Max Hubers definition of what constitutes legal effective control (this must be both a peaceful and natural process) or by Japan's terms of surrender in WWII ie Cairo Convention or Potsdam Declaration. (violence or greed)

If you think Japan is going to claim Dokdo on the basis her military marched in and seized the island in 1905 you got another thing coming Opp. If Japan makes such brash claims as you do, it is a major foreign affairs blunder on her behalf and she will fail.Clownface 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:We are not talking about acts that are displays of juridiction we are talking about legal basis for territorial land claim.

"Displays of juridiction" is most important for the legal territorial claim(title). Have you and a dipsy Korean scholer who cannot even the accurate quotation of the book decided the rule of the world?

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)
It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty

without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

PALMAS(Max Hubers)

• The growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.
  
• If, however, no conventional line of sufficient topographical precision exists or if there are gaps in the frontiers otherwise established, or if a conventional line leaves room for doubt, or if, as e.g. in the case of an island situated in the high seas, the question arises whether a title is valid erga omnes, the actual continuous and peaceful display of state functions is in case of dispute the sound and natural criterium of territorial sovereignty.
• an inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, difinitive title put forward by another State.

• Prof. Mianagawa

What South Korea had to prove was to have acquired stronger title before the Shimane Prefecture incorporation. That is, Korea is necessary to prove that Korean title had substituted to the title by the effective occupation before it was incorporated by Shimane. However, the effective control by Korea has not been proven at all. The discussion such as not being possible to protest is meaningless if Korea cannot prove this.

• Prof. Daijyudo

It is meaningless even if it is assumed that Korea was not able to protest after February, 1905. Because Korea did not do though it was able to control effectively before 1904. They did not manage the sea lions hanting.

• Prof. Serita

Japan made the sea lion hanting a licence system. (SYC.) Peaceful effective control of Japan continued like this till WW2.

The judicial precedent that supports these insistences has been presented. And, does the judicial precedent that supports the insistence of a dipsy Korean scholer who cannot even the accurate quotation of the book?

• Clownface:Max Hubers definition of what constitutes legal effective control (this must be both a peaceful and natural process)

Yes. Peaceful is decided whether another countries expressed the protest or not.

PALMAS(Max Hubers)
Since the moment when the Spaniards, in withdrawing from the Moluccas in 1666, made express reservations as to the maintenance of their sovereign rights, up to the contestation made by the United States in 1906, no contestation or other action whatever or protest against the exercise of territorial rights by the Netherlands over the Talautse (Sangi) Isles and their dependencies (Miangas included) has been recorded. The peaceful character of the display of Netherlands sovereignty for the entire period to which the evidence concerning acts of display relates (1700–1906) must be admitted.

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ)
The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

And, the judicial precedent that admits the military posts has been presented. Thank you.--Opp2 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice cut and paste job. But none of your precedents apply. Do your "dipsy" professors supercede Korea's? For a person with zero law credentials you are a very ignorant person Opp you should be ashamed of insulting a legal professor. do you think that would be acceptable in a court of law "professor Opp"?

Even if you ignore the realities that, it is useless. Myung-Ki Kim cannot do even an accurate quotation. His misquotation has pointed out by Prof. Daijyudo. Refer to the following for a concrete case of Myung-Ki Kim's dipsy quotation.

EXAMPLE OF A IMPROPER QUOTATION BY THIS DIPSY KOREAN SCHOLER

Original text of "A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW by William E. Hall"

The declaration it, it is true, affects only the coasts of the Continent of Africa; and the representatives of France and Russia were careful to make formal reservations directing attention to this fact; the former, especially, placing it on record that island of Madagascal was excluded. Nevertheless an agreement, made between all these states which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast which, at the date of declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of generally binding rule.

France, on taking possession of Comino Islands, and England with regard to Bechuana Land, have already made notification which were not obligatory under the Berlin Declaration. These notifications were, however, evidently made form motives of convenience and not with a view of establishing a principle; France having placed upon record the reservations mentioned above, and England not having notified, at a later date, her assumption of a protectorate over the Island of Socotra.

The dipsy scholer's(Myung-Ki Kim) quotation about Hall

As Westlake, William E. Hall also argues that “the Act of Berlin” is not only valid for the contracting parties, but should be considered as having a general binding power under international law. He says :

an agreement, made between all the state which are likely to endeavour to occupy territory, and covering much the largest spaces of coast, which, at the date of the declaration, remained unoccupied in the world, cannot but have great influence upon the development of a generally binding rule

Is this foolishness who can not even an accurate copy of the text a scholar?--Opp2 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Display of jurisdiction are just proof of jurisiction Opp, they are not a legal basis for territorial land claim.

Basis for land claim are for example: Treaty Law, Geography, Economy, Culture, Effective Control, History, Uti Possiditus (Colonial pre-exisiting boundaries), Elitism, Ideology. Act of jurisdiction display are just proof, they don't legitimize it.

Your original rule is no use. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)

It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

By the way, even if Uti Possiditus is applied, it becomes a Japanese territory because Takeshima's administrative area was Japan(shimane) while annexing. The Chosun governor-general prefecture has never had jurisdiction over Takeshima . Because Japan is not a colony, Uti Possiditus cannot be applied. --Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a bizarre theory Opp, you say the fact Japan whopped up military structures during a war means Japan owns Dokdo. This is wrong on so many points.

Your original rule is no use. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan claimed Dokdo on 2 points in 1905. First she said Dokdo was an inherent part of hers from ancient times and at the same time she stated it was terra nullius "no man's land. This is comical because even as wikipedia pionts out, how can a territory be no man's land and an inherent part of your territory from ancient times Japan's MOFA no longer takes this stance because they know it is a sham. Now they are left with their dubious historical claims which can be disregarded as rubbish by reams of Japan's own maps and documents.

Japan has never say it was terra nullius. When did Japan say, "title by occupation of the terra nullius "? This Japanese contradiction story was created by a South Korean professor who was not able to do even an accurate quotation.--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike all of the precedents you cite, Japan was subject to the terms of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. These treaties specifically state that the Japan must be expelled from all territories siezed by greed or violence.

You see Opp, this is the reason I post links to the Takeshima X Files pages. This information destroys Japan's claim because they are proof of Japan's greed. Seizing territory during a war while fighting over the rights to colonize a nation is a classic example of "greed"

Please read Confidential Instruction #276 issued to the Japanese Warship Tsushima on November 13th, 1904. They are proof that first Japan's annexation of Dokdo was a military siezure and also that Japan's military activities on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) were totally inseparable to the militarization of the Korean peninsula.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html

See Eritrea - Yemen Arbitration Awards. I have already presented. This is the evidence of Japanese peaceful effective control because no countries did not pretest. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed?--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW Opp as I've told you many times Korea protested through what measures remained in tact in 1906. By the time Japan made known her annexation Korea's ability to file state-to-state protest was compromised because in August 1904 Japan dismantled Korea's foreign affairs office and appointed Durham White Stevens.

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

The protest by Korea government did not express. And, the effective control by Japan is from 1905. Korea even did not notice the effective control by Japan.

• Prof. Mianagawa

What South Korea had to prove was to have acquired stronger title before the Shimane Prefecture incorporation. That is, Korea is necessary to prove that Korean title had substituted to the title by the effective occupation before it was incorporated by Shimane. However, the effective control by Korea has not been proven at all. The discussion such as not being possible to protest is meaningless if Korea cannot prove this. --Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very muchClownface 05:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The judicial precedent denies all your dream. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed? I think that you should talk about not your dream but the fact. Thank you.--Opp2 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp Korea has to prove nothing, Korea has Dokdo remember? The year here is 2007 not 1905. Japan has to prove it has a valid claim NOT Korea.

Do it become invalid while fighting against another country(Rossiya)? Japan and Korea did not fight. Prease prove this your original strange rule. Japan did not acquire the title of Takeshima even by the conquest because Korea cannot not prove her title of Takeshima before 1905. Moreover the title by conquest is lawful at that time.

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland(Permanent Court of International Justice,1933)

It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.

Korea doesn't have any evidence of her effective control. This is the reason that some South Korean scholars are aspire the evidence of the effective control by Korea before 1905. However, the evidence doesn't exist. Than you.--Opp2 05:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan lost the right to exercise authority over Dokdo upon the terms of surrender after 1945. Without the consent of the allies she can't exercise jurisdiction over Dokdo. Without exercising sovereignty or any jurisdiction comes acquiesence and thus loss of title. Dokdo was for all effective purposes "terra nullius" in 1945, meaning no nation had a minimum degree of soverignty over the island upon Japan losing effective control.

You have also totally avoided and thus failed to negate the legally binding effect of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Delcaration.

Proclamation Defining Terms For Japanese Surrender(Potsdam Declaration)

The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

When did the Allies do the decision about islans based on this Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration?

The final answer by US government about SF treaty(RUSK DOCUMENTS)

With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment.(SYC.)

As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

This prove that SF treaty did not include Takeshima in the renunciation territory of Japan.

John Foster Dulles's Speech at the San Francisco Peace Conference September 5, 1951

Some Allied Powers suggested that article 2 should not merely delimit Japanese sovereignty according to Potsdam, but specify precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories. This, admittedly, would have been neater. But it would have raised questions as to which there are now no agreed answers. We had either to give Japan peace on the Potsdam Surrender Terms or deny peace to Japan while the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is prepared, and required, to give up. Clearly, the wise course was to proceed now, so far as Japan is concerned, leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this treaty.

This prove that Allies had not decided the islands based on Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration before the SF treaty because Allies ware in the state of the internal trouble. When did the Allies country demand the renunciation of Takeshima to Japan based on the Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration? When did Japan agree to the renunciation of Takeshima based on the determination of Alies? Your drem didnot come true. Tank you.--Opp2 06:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way Opp, there are no judicial precedents that have within them all the elements that the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute has. That is why Korea will never risk taking this to the ICJ. Why should Korea be a test case for ICJ precedents involving colonial expansionism, Post WWII Treaty effects, inchohate titles?

The judicial precedent denies all your dream. Which your empty word or judicial precedent is believed? I think that you should talk about not your dream but the fact. Thank you.....

I don't even understand that quote...

Korea has Dokdo Opp, I hate to tell you this but it is you that is dreaming.....Clownface 12:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:here are no judicial precedents that have within them all the elements that the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute has.

This is wrong. There is no advantageous judicial precedent and international law for South Korea. Therefore, South Korea should deny the judicial precedent and the scholar of International Law without bias and make a new rule like you and the dipsy scholer(Myung-Ki Kim). However, the "New rule" is groundless because the new rule was made by the Korea for the Korea for the Korea. South Korea is not a lawmaking organ of International Law. Thank you.--Opp2 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, as I've said there is no prececent with the same traits of the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. There are so many elements to this dispute that the precedents you cite don't have within them.

Lawyers cite past cases and judges decide whether or not they are applicable NOT you "Judge" Opp. All of these so-called "applicable precedents" you cut and paste ad nauseum are simply some of many hypothetical legal scenarios of that could happen if this were to go to the ICJ and nothing more. Again, under the terms of surrender Japan is legally obligated to stop exercising sovereignty over Dokdo and cannot without consent of the allies. From there the SF Peace Treaty was concluded and Japan signed it. No minimum degree of sovereignty, no effective control, no title.

Thank you very, very much!!Clownface 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Clownface:Lawyers cite past cases and judges decide whether or not they are applicable NOT you "Judge" Opp.

Your insistence has already been denied by the judicial precedent. In addition, your original rurle does not have grounds. Example

• Clownface:Basis for land claim are for example: Treaty Law, Geography, Economy, Culture, Effective Control, History, Uti Possiditus (Colonial pre-exisiting boundaries), Elitism, Ideology.

Does the culture become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the geography become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the history become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the elitism become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Does the ideorogy become the title? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?
Is Uti Possiditus applied to the suzerain? Which scholar says like this? You or a dipsy Korean scholer(Myung-Ki Kim) ?

It's very funny. Thank you.--Opp2 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, here's an artcle from Duke Law University that agrees with what I've said. It is one of many respected law schools you haven't attended.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?53+Duke+L.+J.+1779

Go to school and get a degree before talking law Opp. It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.Clownface 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read "CONCLUSION"?

CONCLUSION

Although territorial disputants perennially make arguments based on all these justifications, only three of these justifications have operated consistently as the ICJ's decision rule: treaty law, uti possidetis, and effective control.

And, the Korea empire acquired title based on which rule. It was ceded by the treaty from Japan at the beginning of 20th century? Did the Korea empire become independent from Japan at the beginning of 20th century? Did Korea empire control Takeshima effectively control? Please show me the evidences which based on these three justifications. If you can not, the effective control of Japan in 1905 cannot be assumed to be an invasion because Korea empire did not have any title and right. Thank you. --Opp2 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you say uti possidetis Opp? That's were territorial boundaries are redrawn to pre-colonial boundaries with the formation of a new state. Dokdo is a good of example of this. When the Republic of Korea was formed Dokdo was part of this new state and the world recognized this without objection. That is just one of many scenarios that could play out in the Dokdo Takeshima dispute in favour of Korea.

I am confirming about the Korea empire and the beginning of 20th century to you. I naver here you about Republic of Korea. Do not change the subject. If you can not show me the evidences which based on these three justifications, the effective control of Japan in 1905 cannot be assumed to be an invasion because Korea empire did not have any title and right. And if you cannot, it become that Takeshima was not included in the invasion region of the Cairo Declaration. Your dream didnot come true. Thank you.--Opp2 15:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Effective control is another basis for Korea's claim as nobody was exercising a minimum degree of sovereignty over Dokdo when Korea took control over the island and to this day has exercised effective control for longer than Japan now.

Your original rule. --Opp2 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says all of the past examples are basis for land title. You base all of your theories only on possibly applicable precedents and not on all possible basis for land claims. As I've mentioned a few times the cases you cite do not include some the elements of the Dokdo dispute which render your examples of questionable relevence.

It is said average lawyers cite precedents and great lawyers make precedents.

I've told you several times now Opp but you ignore the fact. Japan can't claim Dokdo because she signed treaties that explicitly forbid her from exercising any sovereignty over the island. Give it up.220.90.84.168 220.90.84.168 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

Please show me the treaty that Allies determined the minor island based on Potsdam Declaration, the determine the Takeshima as the minor islands and the treaty which shows Japan agreed the Allie's determination. Though Dallas's speach,Rusk Documents and SCAPIN677 showed that the determination of the Allies did not exist till SF treaty. Thank you.--Opp2 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opp, you are not following me. Uti posseditus doesn't need to define the Empire of Korea to legally strip Japan of Dokdo. Uti Posseditus defines Japan's boundary NOT Korea's irregarless of whether or not Dokdo was part of Korea in 1905. Japan's colonial invasion of her surrounding areas began in February 8th of 1904 when Japan declared war on Russian and landed her troop in Chemulpo (Incheon), marched into Seoul and forced Korea to allow Japan to militarily occupy the Korean peninsula. Thus Japan's territorial land acquisition of Dokdo is part of Japan's colonization of the region. Prior to this era Dokdo was not included as part of Japan.

Opp, the Potsdam Declaration doesn't make specific the which minor islands define Japan, but Scapin 677 does.

3. For the purpose of this directive, Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan(Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo(Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks( Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island, (b) the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands south of 30° North Latitude(including Kuchinoshima Island), the Izu, Nanpo, Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan or Iwo) Island Groups, and all other outlying Pacific Islands including the Daito(Ohigashi or Oagari) Island Group, and Parece Vela (Okinotori), Marcus (Minami-tori) and Ganges (Nakano-tori) Islands, and (c) the Kurile (Chishima) Islands, the Habomai (Hapomaze) Island Group (including Suisho, Yuri, Akiyuri, Shibotsu and Taraku Islands) and Shikotan Island.

5. The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.

However, Article 6 of SCAPIN No.677 does not mean that the Allied Powers had not defined Japan's territory but that they had made no ultimate determination. While clearly defining the ownership of the minor islands, including Tokdo, the Allied Powers reserved the right to revise this definition should the need arise. Therefore, some islands were returned to Japan and Japan's residual sovereignty was recognized for some other islands, but no specific directive or memorandum was issued to retrocede Tokdo to Japan, nor a declaration made to recognize Japan's residual sovereignty over Tokdo. Tokdo was separated from Japan by SCAPIN No.677 and in this situation, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded. Japan cannot fill in the blanks with her own definition of the SF Peace Treaty

The Rusk papers were a confidential memorandum, and none of this correspondence resulted in America openly supporting Japan's claim to Dokdo. At any rate we should remember that America was just one of many allies involved in the process of defining Japan's territory. Other drafts of the SF Peace Treaty showed Dokdo was included as part of Korea. This process involved a lot of lobbying and legal wrangling. You can see other drafts showing Dokdo as part of Korea.

http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/SF.htm

However, the bottom line is America defined what minor islands were to be included as part of Japan in directive 3 of Scap 677 and never again modified this definition. Directive 5 seals the legally kills Japan's claim unless the allies made another decision which they did not. Japan is not legally empowered to reverse this decision. Not only that Opp, all powers of the allies were transferred to the Korean's upon the formation of the Republic of Korea's independence.

The allies excluded Takeshima from the definition of Japan and the SF Peace Treaty concluded in this state. This mess is essentially the fault of the allies found the issue to contentious to handle and simply decided not to mofidy the agreement when Japan contested Korea's seizure of Dokdo.Clownface 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Directive 5 seals the legally kills Japan's claim unless the allies made another decision which they did not. " This constitutes original research. Find the reputable English language scholar who has written this conclusion (if you cannot find an English language scholar then straight translate the Japanese/Korean scholar). Wikipedia is not a place for you to interpret legal issues. You report what reputable scholars have written. If there is a difference of opinion then you simply report that scholars disagree. Wikipedia is not a place for you to take original documents and put your conclusions. Especially as so often on this page people are attempting to use these documents to prove their own point of view. Furthermore the links you provide or not reputable scholars and so are meaningless in the context of Wikipedia unless they are simply reproductions of historical material. Macgruder 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

obey alphabetical order. dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". also, this island contolled by korea gov. japan is just "claim". some korean residence that island, but no japanese there. also, in japan, they can't go to dokdo by ship and airplane.(they need permit by korea gov.) but korean can.Bason1 10:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List names in the order, English, Japanese, Korean is alphabetical. --Kusunose 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

in englsih, dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". also, in korean language, ??'s "?"is ahead of "????"'s "?".

according to englsih and korea alphabetical order, dokdo is ahead of takeshima.

also, this island contolled by korea gov. japan is just "claim".(actually NO relation with japan) some korean residence that island, but no japanese there. also, in japan, they can't go to dokdo by ship and airplane.(they need permit by korea gov.) but korean can.Bason1 13:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any general policy or convention to support the alphabetical order rule based on the name of the languages? It doesn't seem to be universally followed. Thanks. --Reuben 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says "foreign language names ... should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages", though it's for the lead or naming section and not for language infobox. --Kusunose 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It also gives precedence to official local names, which allows some subjective judgement. --Reuben 08:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I though it was called Tok Islets as the Korean Anglicized name :-) Macgruder 10:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first table, neither Japan nor South Korea's entry has their anglicized name, so, why is there such a debate over which one should go first? Is J after S in any alphabet? Neier 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

island name : dokdo is ahead of takeshima.Dutyterms 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unbelievable!!

After pointing out some of the historical inaccuracies on this page, (see above) others squabble over "alphabetical order" of the flawed data.

first of all, 'request alphabetial order' is japanese did.Dutyterms 13:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

......sigh..............Clownface 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's because pretty much everything you wrote reads as original research. What you need to do is find quotes in English from reputable sources. Reading your intepretation of sources in Korean is not what Wikipedia is about. If the source material exists only in Korean then you need to find a reputation English language scholar who has written the pertinent information based on these sources. Macgruder 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay if I change administration in the infobox to Disputee Nations? If you have a better term to call it, please make the change right away, but for now I will use that term. Odst 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I change my mind ; I'll wait for a better suggestion. Odst 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why redirect to Liancourt Rocks? Use official name of it. If it became Jap territory, it should be Takeshima, but since legally or illegally Koreans are controlling these areas, we should call them Dokdo, not Liancourt Rocks. It's same thing as doing professional as pro in encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.108.120.26 (talk) 01:56:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from rude terms, such as jap. It is most quite infuriating. Odst 02:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Learn Wikipedia policy. The title name on Wikipedia is nothing to do with who controls or doesn't control the islands or the official name. (Or if you prefer go change the Germany page to Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and do the the same with all other countries and geographic entities and come back.) It depends on standard usage in English - particularly in respected sources such as encyclopedias. There was already a very very long discussion about this and the choice of Liancourt Rocks was the outcome - not everyone is happy about that but at least it seems this non-Japanese/Korean term has enabled this article to focus more on other pertinent issues and earn a better grade in the Wikipedia quality scale. Macgruder 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a much disputed topic... If we called it Dokdo, the Japanese wikipedians would get pissed, and if we called it Takeshima, the Korean Editors would get pissed. Besides, that area is internationally recognized as the Liancourt rocks...><

O Odst 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

File:After wold war 2 dokdo.jpg

This map is attached map of this document.[27] [28] The title of this document is "Agreement Respecting the Disposition of Former Japanese Territories". This document is not a draft of a peace treaty. I think this was prepared for the determination based on the Potsdam declaration clause 8.

Potsdam declaration
(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

However, any Allies did not sign this document. It is uncertain whether this document was distributed to other Allies. I think that the map and document which even the date and the manufacturer are uncertain is needless. Rusk documents that is an official diplomatic document might be more important. In addition, a present footnote is very inaccurate. I will delete this map if there is no rebuttal.--Opp2 04:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, rusk document made by japanese robbie. and that document does not have "effect of international law". also, in 1945, US-Japan relation much favor than US-Korea relation. in that period, US did not know about korea. also, in that time, us and korea were NOT ally. US was not favor to Korea(than japan). see [29]Dutyterms 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Donot change the subject. Did you understand this map was not a draft?Did you understand the union country did not agree?--Opp2 14:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a link to an expedition 75 years before the treaty "proves" (see American Revolutionary War for "proof" that the US and UK were enemies in WWII). The problem is much simpler--don't interpret, document. Get some nice citations and we can include more information. --Cheers, Komdori 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

please, see this [30]Dutyterms 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SCAPIN is being written. However, draft5 is not found. Cannot you distinguish SCAPIN and the peace treaty?--Opp2 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The example of the draft of the peace treaty is shown below.

• This is a draft by US on December, 1949.[31]
• This is a draft by England on April, 1951.[32]
• This is a draft by England and US on June, 1951.[33]

Isn't your draft 5 a draft of this December, 1949? This map is not included in the draft. --Opp2 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, we're going to keep Dokdo on top of Takeshima on the info box. Ok? Roger. I'm ready when you are, to start another row & revert wars & arbitrations etc. Ok? Good. (Wikimachine 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

No good. The controversy between Japan and South Korea needs fair treatment. so... I changed it back by alphabet order. --Boldlyman 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll report to WP:SOCK if you continue. And stop using Jonglish. (Wikimachine 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

If he is a sock as a result of the checkuser, he will be blocked by admin. I think you should not judge and make a threatening statement by only your guess before checkuser's result comes out. Though you have the right to report, you donot have the right to judge. --Opp2 02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal about info box is KPOV. You should respect the alphabetical order for NPOV. --Opp2 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously Dokdo comes before Takeshima. D before T? I will not tolerate anything so messed up as this one. (Wikimachine 02:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

The name of the island is already Dokdo/Takeshima. You should see the top of the infobox. The name of the country has obviously Japan comes before South Korea. The subject about administration is country. The island(Takeshima) is the nonego(object). Can you understand?--Opp2 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's a big deal and would understand Korea first as the 'occupier', but unfortunately this is not Wikipedia policy which is clear on the matter:

"permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3...)"

This is clear and unambiguous Japanese comes before Korean (i.e. the languages) so Japan goes first. Sorry, this is Wikipedia policy Macgruder 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Wikipedia policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline. --Kusunose 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also not followed in some cases, e.g. Senkaku Islands. --Reuben 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saw that & I changed it back. (Wikimachine 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

It's in precisely these situations that we follow the guidelines. Forget the Senkaku Islands. If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K. Macgruder 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand any of you. I voluntarily reverted my own edit before Opp2, Kusunose, Reuben, or you Macgruder said anything. Then, it's not necessary to say any of these words. However, it seems that some ppl especially like Macgruder (I say Macgruder b/c you are about 1 day late in your history cache) just love to point out & isolate some other ppl's mistakes and shape & phrase them as fundamental flaws - perfectly fitting if you want some evidences showing how unreliable or POv an editor is. And they these same ppl do some police action, like "read the guidelines". "You don't seem to understand the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia, from which our naming convention is also derived... you don't deserve to be an admin" I really appreciate all these proverbs & consultations you guys are offering. (Wikimachine 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Frankly, I have no clue what you are talking about. "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." is not exactly clear is it - especially coming after a comment about the Senkaku Islands having the reverse order. You seem to be over-reacting and paranoid that every comment is a personal attack on you. In fact, in this thread practically all I've done is point out the Wikipedia Policy/Guidelines. The only person turning this into a personal issue is yourself. Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you. Macgruder 04:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You can both admit there was a misunderstanding, say sorry and move on, right? Phonemonkey 09:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'd usually hope, but I don't expect that from Macgruder. And, no, Macgruder, only your sheer arrogance can allow you to make that generous comment about the modicum of respect ppl have for me. I haven't made edits to Senkaku Islands in a hundred years, and yes that's exactly how it was - crystal windows vista clear.

"20:11, 20 August 2007 (nvm, wrong ones) This was the revert that I made on myself. Immediate response was made by Opp2 on 02:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC). And Macgruder you're one day late, so at the end of the day, you being one day late on your history cache (your comp must run windows 95) is enough for me to suspect that you are being arrogant. And especially when ppl are arrogant, I don't go "'sorry' and move on". I make them learn their lesson, that day. (Wikimachine 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

And I get enough respect from everybody else, and I respect humankind in return, so forget about repeating that phrase to anyone else in Wikipedia. You have the wrong idea if you think I come to Wikipedia b/c I'm a complete loser & got nothing better to do. (Wikimachine 21:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even the scholar who is supporting the insistence of South Korea is critical to the attitude of present South Korea.[34] p23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you finish gibbering on about whatever imaginary scenario happens to be in your mind at that time, please feel free to come back to whether or not you still believe that having troops somewhere forms the basis of a claim to sovereignty. Eagerly awaiting your response. Phonemonkey 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the occupation is illegitimate in your sense, UN should respond. (Wikimachine 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Again, Wikimachine manages to miraculously skirt the issue. As I have explained many times, I'm not saying the occupation is illegitimate, nor am I saying the occupation is legitimate. All I am doing is questioning your ridiculous notion that legitimacy derives from occupation. Looking forward to another irrelevant comment which clumsily avoids the question. Phonemonkey 12:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is too vague to be answered effectively. I'll copy paste here: If Holland is the only country that has troops on the isle, yes it becomes Dutch (Wikimachine 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Third Opinion - This whole section violates WP:TALK and WP:OR. Unless all of you happen to be doctors of international law, stop the discussion and find sources. Remember that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, and are not a forum to discuss the subject. Wikipedia is not a forum. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is how it evolved to be b/c it's not about the substance, it's about the POVish emphasis. I hope that you participate in this discussion. (Wikimachine 16:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Fourth Opinion - Krator (t c) is right -- this is a discussion about the topic and not about the article. Even if you all ARE doctors of international law, go find sources to back up what you're saying, then clearly and concisely lay out what changes you want to make to the article. If you just want to debate the various claims involved, then take it elsewhere. This kind of discussion doesn't belong on-wiki. --Darkwind (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Krator and Darkwind: this discussion is in effect a response to Wikimachine's suggestion that the article title breaches NPOV, so the topic of the discussion is about the article. I agree however that the discussion has spun out of control; perhaps it would have been a lot easier had I simpy requested sources to back up his statement, as you suggest. Phonemonkey 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, these ppl aren't interesting building the article as I am at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (to make it featured, of course). They're interested "in emphasizing certain points" (quote Opp2) on the introduction. And that can quite easily be done & you don't need any sources to do that. (Wikimachine 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

I was talking about requesting you to present sources, not requesting Opp2 to present sources, because it is you who is taking issue with the title of the article. And since the basis of your argument is that Korea's sovereign rights over the rocks automatically derives from its occupation of the rocks, then I would like a source which shows this please. Thanks, Phonemonkey 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that concerned about the title, it will be unrealistic for me to try to change it right now w/ all the other things that I have to deal with. Read the archives. I presented plenty of sources. Seems you're fairly new to Wikipedia, & I saw your userbox that you're striving to be neutral. I hope that's what you really are. (Wikimachine 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

"Japan asserted its legal claim then, even though, based on the International Crisis Group’s review of historical records, Korea had a stronger claim." - Yale Global [35] (Wikimachine 23:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

"The islets in the Sea of Japan are being administered by South Korea, but both countries claim sovereignty over them." [36] (Wikimachine 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Neither of the two sources you list indicate that sovereign rights derives from military occupation. But if you are not trying to change the title (I was under the mistaken impression that you were, given that you were challenging the NPOVness of the title), then Krator and Darkwind are right, this whole section is pointless. Phonemonkey 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)