Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 1

---

Blatantly POV paragraph excised from page:

However, it has been proved that the Japanese claims to the islets were recently created by altering ancient records, an illegal act by any standard. The Meiji Government of Japan also acknowledged that the Liancourt Rocks were Korean, and the Imperial Court of Japan even ruled at the time that "Our nation has nothing to do with Tokdo (Liancourt Rocks)." Records and geographical charts made by the Japanese military and European explorers at the time also clearly indicate that the Liancourt Rocks are Korean territory, and therefore prove that the Japanese claim is baseless. The Japanese claim that the Liancourt Rocks were ownerless is also, therefore, a false statement. Not only that, the the Allied forces even ruled in 1945 that "Japan return all territories it seized by power and greed." This treaty does not count only territories from 1910, when Korea was annexed as a part of Japan, but from 1895, when Japan aseized the Laotung Peninsula from China. The Liancourt Rocks, having been secretly annexed without the permssion or notification of Korea (contrary to the Japanese propoganda that the Koreans agreed), fit perfectly into this territory. Recent evidence about Japan's attempts to take Tokdo in the 1600's also proves that Japan does not have a historical link to the islands, but only wants the resources located near the islets.

Maybe the History section should be split into Japanese and Korean views, since it's very difficult to maintain a NPOV on this... Jpatokal 15:03, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And again...

, as this was seen as mutilating the history. In recent times, there have been a number of occasions where Japan allowed history textbooks to contain falsified information earning complaints from China and Korea.

-- Jpatokal 01:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi

I added Samguk Sagi.Kadzuwo 11:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dokdo vs Tokto

The islands are occupied by South Korea, and South Korea uses Revised Romanization; ergo, the islands are Dokdo, not Tokto. This is also 5x more popular in Google. And the article will remain under Liancourt Rocks, because that's the only neutral name for the place... Jpatokal 03:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the relationship between Dokto and Ulungdo? Is Ulungdo one of the Liancourt's? Is it disputed too? Markalexander100 07:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ulleungdo (following Revised Romanization) is a much larger island to the west of Dokdo. The island state of Usanguk was based on Ulleungdo, and ever since it was incorporated into the Korean state of Silla, it has been tied to mainland Korea. It is now a part of Gangwon Province. It has never been claimed by Japan. So stressing the relationship between Ulleungdo and Dokdo (such as the traditional use of Dokdo as a base for fishing boats from Ulleungdo) helps the Korean POV, since Ulleungdo is indisputably Korean. The Japanese POV tends to stress the long-time status of Dokdo as uninhabited islets, thereby downplaying the ties with Ulleungdo. --Iceager 07:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point. A small note: Ulleungdo is a part of North Gyeongsang Province, with itself as a "gun(rhymes with "moon")." noirum 12:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

My bad. I stand corrected. --Iceager 02:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

External links

Two (2) links will be allowed for Korean viewpoints and Japanese viewpoints each, preferably official ones (*.gov). I'm open to suggestions on which ones to pick. Jpatokal 05:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should the Japanese links be before the Korean ones? J is before K alphabetically, but Korea has the stronger claim since they physically occupy the territory. Jpatokal 15:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably not, but I don't think anyone except Kunitaka thinks it's worth arguing about. :) Markalexander100 11:52, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sea of Japan?

The ROK prefers East Sea: see [1] (the Japanese government's own site). Both terms should be mentioned. Markalexander100 05:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

(discussion below from User talk:Kunitaka --Jpatokal)

Re: the name of the sea around Liancourt Rocks, as long as the Koreans themselves call it the "East Sea of Korea", this must be mentioned. It doesn't matter if the Pope declares it to be the Sea of Japan!

Please understand: Wikipedia does not aim for one "correct" view. We need to present both the Japanese and the Korean view. Jpatokal 14:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

You can say it in Korean version, but not in English language websites. You must respect the decision of international society. kunitaka 8:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense and you do not understand the meaning of the UNCSGN resolution, which applies only to areas owned by nations. The Sea is international territory not owned by Japan or Korea. This has been debated before, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Jpatokal 03:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

China does not own "the Yellow Sea", but we call it so. No one calls it "West Sea". This rules applies to the Sea of Japan.kunitaka 04:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Both the Koreans and the Chinese call it the Yellow Sea, and the name is not in dispute. (Not that this matters, because the Liancourt Rocks are not in the Yellow Sea.) Jpatokal 06:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Issue now added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment since this and the accompanying edit war are obviously going nowhere. Jpatokal 06:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved with this, but is there a reason Kunitaka removed the image? He/she removed it with the summary "corrections"; is it wrong in some way? -- Hadal 08:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The image was deleted by accident. Please post the image. Thank you.kunitaka 08:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Silsor, thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, it is of course The Wrong Version. ;) I gather you can choose which version to protect in cases of vandalism and where one user has reverted more than three times, both of which apply here. No idea why he also deleted the picture. Markalexander100 08:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The reson I deleted the word "East Sea" is that no longer issue. United Nations announced that "the Sea of Japan" is the appropriate name. No "the West Sea" instead of "the Yellow Sea", No "the East Sea" instead of "the Sea of Japan". Russia touches the Sea of Japan only 10%, and Korea touches it 20% of whole coastal line, but Japan represents 70% in "the Sea of Japan" Please respect the U.N. announcement. Thank you.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html  kunitaka 08:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Dispute resolution attempt

OK, let's try to get this hammered out once and for all... as far as I see there are two issues:

1. Naming order, as either "Japanese: Korean:" or "Korean: Japanese:"
2. "Sea of Japan" or "Sea of Japan (aka East Sea of Korea)"

My opinions are:

1. The area is physically occupied by South Korea, so their name and their claim gets precedence. I cite the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is listed under that name despite the fact that, and I quote, "All other governments and the United Nations recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over the whole island of Cyprus" and that the Greek Cypriots call it nasty things like the "Area Under Occupation By The Turkish Military".
2. Likewise, the Koreans continue to call the Sea of Japan the "East Sea of Korea", so this must be mentioned. Note that, for example, the link to the Korean Maritime Affairs Ministry's site about Dokdo uses the term "East Sea".

Jpatokal

Yes. Fighting over which language to put first would probably constitute a lame edit war, but removing all reference to one side of the dispute is bizarre. Markalexander100 02:02, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Kunitaka`s message

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/north_east_asia/south_korea/south_korea.htm

1. "the Yellow Sea" is appropriate name.
2. "the Sea of Japan" is appropriate name.
3. "the East China Sea" is appropriate name.

The West Sea, the East Sea, and the South Sea are the local name that Koreans use. Koreans can use those names in Korea, but not international society. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

China, Japan, and Korea use Chinese characters. Both Japan and China express "the sea of Japan" using Chinese characters. Korea also use Chinese characters but express "the East Sea". It means "the East Sea" is local placename that Koreans use.

"the East Sea" is local placename that Koreans use. Exactly. So it would be nice to mention what one party to the dispute calls the place. ;) Markalexander100 01:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)