Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dispute

As this article was split from Liancourt Rocks, and that one was under probation for disputes over mainly the contents moved here, I have extended that probation to this article as well. Please note the above information and work accordingly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Major Problems with Clear Thinking and Good Writing in Section '1905 Shimane Notice 40'

Some parts of the present article require major clean up in the areas of clear thinking, rational presentation, and effective communication. While I understand the public nature of wikipedia article writing, muddled logic, childish insistence, and sloppy language have no place in an encyclopedic article. In the following paragraph in section '1905 Shimane Notice 40' are to be found serious problems in all three areas:

"Korea claims that the decision was not reported in a official gazette. The decision was reported a one minor local newspaper only. There is no evidence that decision reported in a government gazette. Moreover, There is no evidence that decision reported to a central government of Japan at one time, also the decision was not noticed by central government. Japan was not notice to neighbor country. Korea claims that it was a almost impossible that tiny sized notice of local newspaper (3.4 cm[85][86]) recognized by foreign. Korea claims that the decision was a nothing but a "document occupation", and its procedure was a secret. Therefore, Korea claims that the decision was not fulfil the necessary conditions of territory's incorporation by international law. [87] [88] Korea also claims that 'Shimane Notice 40' was not announced to public. [89]"

1. Please qualify your statements (Give good reasons and facts instead of giving an all-or-none claim)

The preceding paragraph has already established that the Japanese Cabinet's decision was made public. If the paragraph that follows wishes to add significant information to it, therefore, it should qualify the nature of the Sanin shimbun newspaper report instead of flatly rejecting it ("not announced to public").

2. Please avoid repetition (Do not simply repeat what has already been said either by you or another writier)

Why is the claim of "not announcing to public" becoming increasingly repetitious? The basic rules of good writing demand not repeating without adding meaningful information. This particular violation is unforgiveable. Please add meaningful information as to why the public notice was invalid or what makes it less credible on legal grounds for example.

3. Please apply common sense (Do not lodge a childish statement that no rational adult would accept outside your ethnic group)

The lack of common sense is lamentable. What purpose is to be served by making a frivolous complaint about the smallness of the announcement ("3.4 cm")? I detect nothing close to factual significance or improved reasoning in such a complaint. Instead, I only see a childish desire to gain attention and acceptance by simple, repetitious complaining. It does not matter whether a prominent scholar or the general public believe a 1.5 inch notice is not big enough. It's still visible, so that would not make a good argument unless all literate Koreans at the time of the notice had major problems with vision and did not have access to a magnifying glass to aid them in the reading of the notice. I have made a previous remark on this matter, but whoever wrote the passage in question either did not read it or disregarded all of my points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_19#Re:_1._Are_physical_dimensions_of_a_public_notice_relevant.3F__2._Dependence_on_Ulleung_Is_could_affect_legal_interpretation_of_human_activity

4. Please write in proper English by verifying basic grammar and usage

Finally, lanauge matters. While I understand not all contributors might be fluent in written English, problems of content noted above are compounded by the simply sloppy language that really does not improve the situation at all. Please (whoever contributed to the article in question) reread what you wrote and clean up any language problems as well as those of logic, common sense, and proper argumentation. Lex (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be seriously overhauled. Feel free to tackle the issue and clean things up. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all, so you are just as welcome to improve the article as anyone else here. Please keep in mind the information at the top of this page, however, when making the edits. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shii's 02:34, 2 June 2009, edit

In regard to Shii's revision as of 02:34, 2 June 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liancourt_Rocks_dispute&diff=293951867&oldid=293907887

Your edit summary states:

"(→1905 Shimane Notice 40: obviously none of this matters if the territory is unclaimed; it's only relevant if they are seizing korean territory, which is what this is about in the 1st place)"

This is not a valid reason for editing out a vast amount of footnotes because the word "unclaimed" is not a fact but a conditional, a view that was held in 1905 by the Japanese government only. The very reason the word "unclaimed" was nested between double quotation marks was to reserve passing judgement either for or against the Japanese claim. Now taking such a conditional as factual and to act upon it would result in a grave logical error. Hence I would suggest you revert your edit. Although some of the removed footnotes might need some clean up, it needs to be done for a valid reason or reasons, which yours is not. Lex (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am only responding to the complaint you yourself registered. This is a very large page and needs to be shrunk down. Korea's complaint about the choice of newspaper and size of article for a government announcement is only relevant because they think this is an announcement of Japan's seizure of Korean land. Obviously if it was a seizure of terra nullius nobody in Korea at the time would particularly care. So, the arguments cited have nothing to do with the dispute at hand; they are only a side issue to the main claim that Japan did not respect Korea's claim. Shii (tock) 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

well, its point is, Japan "hide" its incorporate. Japanese knew island is Korean Territory, (their ancient map, goverment order), but later, they illegally incorporate its island by secret. it was a "invalid" act. In 1905, Koreans in Japan were only 35 person.(source:Takasaki Soji, Shokuminchi Chosen no Nihonjin [The Japanese in Colonial Korea] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2002)) and it is unclear fact that this 35 korean knew japanese language, and lived in shimane. It was impossible that shimane local news paper found by Korean and Korean goverment in 1905. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving from one extreme to the other is certainly not the ideal solution to the problems I raised. Admitting the need for reducing quantity, taking out the main point in dispute nullifies the effort to improve this article. For instance, removing the word "unclaimed" effectively reduces the section into a pointless one. Furthermore, I called the writer's attention to remove redundant statements, not to remove all statements. The main claims that are clashing can only become obvious by presenting the main points in dispute; Japan's claim of incorporating "unclaimed" islets and having taken sufficient action to rule out all alternate possibilities contrary to its perception and Korea's counterclaim that Liancourt Rocks had not been a terra nullius in 1905 and that Japan had not taken sufficient action to rule out that Liancourt Rocks had been previoulsy claimed by Korea. Lex (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother trying to revise this article if the smallest change to a sub-sub-heading is disputed like this. I agree entirely that it is not clear whether the islands were unclaimed at that time, but I don't think the length of the newspaper article is pertinent to that debate. Shii (tock) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I recovered well sourced material. there is no reason to delete. The shimane decision was NOT announced public. It was a totally invalid to international law. and Japan try to hide this fact. if you try to delete it, it is nothing but a vandalism. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

2009.6

unreadable, ungrammatical and highly tendentious additions?

My edits are based off well referenced material.

• In the historical documents Sejong Sillok, Goryeosa, and Mangi Yoram, Usan-guk consisted of Ulleung-do and Usan-do. Usan-do is a part of Usan-guk. Japanese scholar claims that Jukdo was maybe Usan-do, but Jukdo was never recorded as Usan-do in any history records. Man-gi yoram (Handbook of State Affairs) of quotes Yojiji (Gazetteer) in its chapter on military administration it reads. "Ulleung and Usando all belonged to Usan-guk land and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks).....". It cleary recorded as Usan-do was a Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks).
• However, there is no island locate in west of Ulleungdo. It is not a evidence that Usan-do is not a Liancourt rocks. Paldo Chongdo is a just abstracted map, it regarded as a 'map error'.
• This sentence also regard as Usan-do is a part of Ulleung-do. According to kangkyego (1756), "Yeojiji stated that Usan-do and Ulleung-do are one island by another view, but, actually they are two different islands. one island is what the Japanese called Matsushima. Two islands are part of Usan-guk."
• Onshu(隠州 -On Province-) is in the middle of the North Sea and is called Okinoshima(隠岐島). Going further from there(Onshu) 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 Onshu(隠州) from Izumo Province(雲州). Accordingly, Japan's northwest border is this province(Onshu, 隠州 -On Province-).
• Hayashi Shihei published "Map of Three Adjoining Countries
• In 1903, Japanese right-wing group called the Black Dragons. Liancourt Rocks is listed under Gangwon Province (Korea) and bracketed under Ulleungdo Island. In addition the manual is titled The Black Dragon's Chosun Fishing Guide. This shows that those Japanese fishermen who frequented the region regarded Liancourt Rocks as both part of Korea (Gangwan Province) and as an appended island of Ulleungdo. Surely, if the Japanese fishermen of the day regarded Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan, the island would not be in a Korean fishing manual listed under the jurisdiction of Gangwan Province and bracketed under Korea's Ulleungdo Island.
• Japan`s 1905 claim to Liancourt Rocks was made during the period when Japan was engaged in efforts to exert military and civilian control over Korea, which led to the establishment of a protectorate over Korea in November 1905 and formal annexation in 1910. On Feb. 23, 1904, eleven months prior to Japan`s claim to Liancourt Rocks, Japan sent troops into Seoul and compelled Korea to sign a protocol agreement giving Japan effective control over Korea`s government. This protocol marked the moment when Korea lost its ability to act independently. As Lee Han-key has written: "Korea was deprived of its rights to conduct diplomacy and its sovereignty and independence by this protocol signed on February 23, 1904, not by the Protectorate Treaty concluded on November 17, 1905." In order to gain support for its claim to Liancourt Rocks, Japan would have to overcome the almost impossible hurdle of convincing others that its annexation of the islets was not part of its expansionist military activities in Northeast Asia. As the late Judge Park Choon-ho put it, Japan stole "the whole bakery and now wants the crumbs.
• However, according to the internal report, the U.S. government took the position that "a series of U.S. measures regarding Liancourt Rocks should not be interpreted as saying that the islets' sovereignty lies with Japan" in the early 1950s. the State Department report at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The report, dated Aug. 26, 1954 (After the Rusk and Van Fleet document), is entitled "Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)." The State Department report first gives a detailed explanation on how Liancourt Rocks was excluded from the list of Korean territory that Japan was to return in Article 2 of the San Francisco treaty. It then points out that whether the accord implies a legal decision that Liancourt Rocks remains with Japan was still a question.
• Japan officially excluded Dokdo/Takeshima from its jurisdiction while readjusting its territory after its defeat in the Second World War. The two Japanese documents from 1951 that "excluded" several islands including Dokdo/Takeshima, Ulleungdo and Jejudo from Japan’s territory. The documents are "prime ministerial ordinance no. 24" and "finance ministerial ordinance no. 4." Japan has claimed that it acknowledged Dokdo/Takeshima as its territory long ago, but the document shows that it did not, at least before the San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded on Sept. 8, 1951. In other words, Japan's claim of Liancourt Rocks is a possibly made up story by Japan since early 1950s. Japan protested South Korea's control of Liancourt Rocks since september 1954. Originally Japan goverment hide this document. A Korean lawyer named Choi Bong-tae received 60,000 pages of documents from Japan’s Foreign Ministry in July 2008 after winning a lawsuit asking Japan to disclose information on Korea-Japan talks. From the documents sent by the ministry, the part related to ordinance no. 24 was intentionally deleted but later found by the Korean Maritime Institute/

I can't find any 'unreadable, ungrammatical and highly tendentious additions' from this edit. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Hi, is there anyway to put a small little map of the rocks/islands and their location with respect to the Japanese and South Korean mainland? I think that would help the article immensely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.240.30 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a map like that in the main Liancourt Rocks article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Blossom OK's edit

Cherry Blossom OK's continuous re-insertion of his/her edits [1] [2] [3] are in clear breach of the 1RR rule, is it not? " No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit." Those edits were removed first by Future Perfect and myself as they are highly controversial edits which fall under the definition of an edit that "significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.". In other words, the onus is on Cherry Blossom to gain a consensus on the discussion board before making those edits. Phonemonkey (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

His edits were full of stuff like this: Dokdo is visible from Korea and means ``solitary island.`` Japan wants to take it away from Korea again. Dokdo being too far away to be seen from Japan and the Japanese not knowing what was on it, they first named it Matsushima (pine island), later renaming it Takeshima (bamboo island). Both are misnomers because there ``ain't`` no pines or bamboos on Dokdo. I deleted them and please delete them yourself as well. Shii (tock) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseon/Edo Period

I tried to make the Joseon/Edo period section a little more NPOV than before. Apologies if my edits aren't appropriate; revert them if necessary. atanamir (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Something new has been found about this matter

Some sort of law has recently been discovered (from 1946) which clearly shows that the Japanese classified Liancourt Rocks (written as 竹島 in the document) as foreign territory. Unfortunately the news article linked to this is Korean :(http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/11/16/2009111600062.html P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 10:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

See this 1952 letter. Oda Mari (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I came upon an English source of this news today: Japanese Document Shows Dokdo as Foreign Territory (The Chosun Ilbo). oncamera^(t) 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The president Roh Moo-hyun's statement on Dokdo

On the article Dokdo of Korean Wikipedia, you can read the address of a president of South Korea, Roh Moo-hyun;

2006년 한국의 대통령 노무현은 한일관계 특별담화를 발표하고 일본에 사과에 부합하는 행동 촉구하였는데, 그는 담화에서 '독도는 우리 땅입니다. 그냥 우리 땅이 아니라 40년 통한의 역사가 뚜렷하게 새겨져 있는 역사의 땅입니다. 독도는 일본의 한반도 침탈 과정에서 가장 먼저 병탄되었던 우리 땅입니다. 일본이 러일전쟁 중에 전쟁 수행을 목적으로 편입하고 점령했던 땅입니다. '라고 말하였다. 또한 일본이 독도에 대한 권리를 주장하는 것은 제국주의 침략전쟁에 의한 점령지 권리, 나아가서는 과거 식민지 영토권을 주장하는 것이기 때문에 독도는 완전한 주권회복의 상징이라고 말하였다. 양국의 외교관계는 급랭하였고 노무현 정부는 주일대사를 소환하였다

I thought it's related to this article, so I drafted a translation to insert into. Would you please review the translation?
In 2006, the president Noh Moo-hyun of South Korea anounced the special dialog about Korea-Japan relation, that demanded Japanese government's actions following the apology of Japan about previous colonization of Korea. In the dialog, he said 'Dokdo is Korean territory, not an ordinary Korean territory, but Korean territory which had been carved with bitter grief. Dokdo is the first Korean territory which was deprived of when Japan colonized Korea. Japan occupied the land for the battles during Russo-Japanese war'. And he expressed that Japanese claim for Dokdo means a pursuit of the right for the occupied land by emperial invasion, hence the claim for previous colony. He stated by for that Dokdo is a symbol of the recovery of Korean sovereignty.

--Cheol (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The claims of both sides are already clear. Politicians of both countries always say something on the matter. You don't have to add everything who said what to the article except that the claim was different from his/her country's old claims. It is unworthy of mention and it would be undue weight. Furthermore, please do not add something to the article without reference. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and reverting. I think Mr. Noh's talk could give the readers deeper comprehension of the understanding of general people in Korea about Dokdo. It could be informative of course. For the reference, I could find and will give in a second if you want. Let us discusss about this addition at first. --Cheol (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the importance of Mr. Noh's statement? If it was a significant statement, it would have been added to the article in 2006 by some editor. Now, four years later, as far as I know, the statement didn't change any aspects of the situation. I think it should not be included for the lack of importance. And Wikipedia is not a soap box. I'm afraid "...could give the readers deeper comprehension of the understanding of general people in Korea about Dokdo." would be a Korean promotion. Oda Mari (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It was very serious and very sudden. The address is still influential in contrast with Mr. Lee's attitude, new president. After this address, he recalled the ambassador in Japan and canceled all meetings with Japanese government. It was very serious. It was a change for new direction. Before this address he tried to get along well with Koizmi. I think this address has more weight than the next paragraph, events in 2008. Would you please be careful when you say someone is promoting? If you ask, I will answer about what you are not in confident. --Cheol (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, the recall of the Korean ambassador was two years after the statement, precisely July 14, 2008, and it was a protest against that the Japanese government announced that they added the dispute to the curriculum guideline for junior high school. It had nothing to do with the statement. As you know very well, the ambassador came back to Japan on Aug. 5, 2008. But the Japanese government did not change their decision. The statement and the recall had no influence on Japanese claims at all. So the inclusion of the statement would be meaningless. And you have to remember Wikipedia is not a news story. Oda Mari (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The previous recall of the ambassador was in 2001. As far as I know, Mr. Noh has never recalled the ambassador. I don't understand what you are talking about. Please explain more specifically. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The address was very contriversial in Japanese assembly. Assemblyman Fujiwara expressed his opinion a few times and Minister Aso at that time answered about this issue. I read it on Japanese assembly minutes. It was not a casual and usual address. I'm recollecting my memory on this event. It was related to EEZ setting. The address of the president made Japanese marine survey canceled, which was planed before the address. Korea quit a quiet policy on Dokdo and setup a new policy. [4] is related story. --Cheol (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you changed the point from the ambassador recall to the EEZ issue. It's OK. But the address was made as a reaction and protest against the Japanese decision of oceanic survey, wasn't it? The current version is only about what he said. Readers do not understand why he made the statement. Just the description of the statement looks like a propaganda. Other editor might revert it. You have to write about the matter from the beginning in the article. Just providing an El is not good enough. Please rewrite it. Thank you, Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Defense obligation of United States under the US-Japan Security Treaty

I suggest to describe a progress in Japan as following text. 'Japanese government answered about the defense obligation of United States under the US-Japan Security Treaty. It said now Dokdo is not in the Japanese administration, so United States has no obligation to defend.' It was reported by Sankei newspaper in Japan. [5] --Cheol (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a progress. It's only the answer to Akiko Kamei's question. It's nothing new. Just an explanation what the things have been. If it was not, the islets must have been attacked ages ago. Internationally, the third country does not intervene a territorial dispute. That is why the USA does not have obligation. Yukio Hatoyama said the government has not changed the policy on this matter. [6] The situation has not changed at all. So the inclusion is not needed. Oda Mari (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the asking and answering is a meaningful process in Japanese society. Someone urged to have a military action, but Japanese government refused with some reason. Although it is a process or not, it's obvious that Japan could not do military action because the action is not allowed under the US-Japan security treaty. It's important information. --Cheol (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meaningful at all. It's your misunderstanding that the action is not allowed under the US-Japan security treaty.The reason Japan does not attack the islets is for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and it's the Korean police stationed the islets. Once the Korean army or navy would be stationed there, Japan wouldcould immediately attack the islets and recapture them. Please learn more about this dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see your argument. Not along with the treaty, the fact that the constitution of Japan also prohibits the war is related to Dokdo dispute is not mentioned in this article. You pointed out that it is well known and not new, so I suggest to describe these facts. This article lacks those information. --Cheol (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is a treaty regarding conflict resolution. Oda Mari (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this article could include this mutual understanding in addition to two aspects, the US-Japan Security Treaty related question and answer and Article 9 of Japanese peace constitution? No objection. --Cheol (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No. IMHO, as Wikipedia is not 4. textbooks and annotated texts, nor 4. a news report and a commentary, everything you suggested to add, including the President Noh's address, is unnecessary to add to the Recent conflict section. I think only the information that changes the situation should be added to the article. Fundamentally, the situation has not changed nor progressed at all since 1953. I want you to see the dispute in perspective. What you suggested to add are trivial information to me. Oda Mari (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't insist on the particular section. I just want to give out related information to the readers as an encyclopedia. WP could provide better text for the reason why two countries do not conflict in terms of military since South Korea's taking away the effective control and future forecast of this conflict at the point of neutrality. --Cheol (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest to add? Please try and write it here first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft steps into the tar pit

I came across this amusing piece "Microsoft Accidentally Sides With Korea in Liancourt Rocks Territorial Dispute" while looking for something else. I'll leave it here for anyone who wishes to use it in one of the articles. -- PBS (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's a few years ago, too. I'm surprised it wasn't brought up before. After reading it, I don't see that it really has a place in the article as it's likely been "fixed" to allow either name. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversed addition of GoldSea info

The GoldSea site doesn't appear to be anything other than a news aggregator for Asian-related news. Additionally, it doesn't appear to be have any editorial controls as the article linked in the reference had multiple grammar and wording issues, not to mention being somewhat sensationalistic. Even if the article and site were reliable, the "news" is about a draft treaty, not one which was signed. Treaties go through many drafts before a final version is reached, so the content of a draft treaty can hardly be used to support anything other than a statement that the final agreement went through multiple drafts. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a discovery. It's nothing new. The map is a part of the draft on November 2, 1949. Sebald recommended reconsideration and the islets were not in the article 6 of the draft made on December 29, 1949. See s:Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan and [7]. The old draft map does not change anything. So I remove the addition. Oda Mari (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you guys notice the statement right above it is a draft in favor of Japan, if you delete something in favor of Korea and your arguement is because it is a draft you must be consistent. you must delete the Japanese draft 6 and 7. You can't pick and choose which draft you like. I think the Ewha university was pointing out the error in dating from 1949 to 1947. It looks like before when General MacArthur was defining the territory of Japan, Dokdo was designated and Korean. Later in 1949 looks like because fear of communism and wanting to end all these policital issues quickly and wanting Japan in US favor they just left if up in the air for political reasons. Looks like Chosun Ilbo and Ewha university were added as references if Goldsea is not accepted. Anyways, when you 2 buddies decide to delete drafts please make sure you delete the ones that favor Japan as well so that you don't come off as pushing POV. Thanks --165.214.4.21 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

165.214.4.21, the reason I reverted Objectiveye's addition was the information became null and void when the next draft was made on Dec 29, 1949. It has nothing to do with "in favor of" Japan nor Korea. Take a good look at the first part of the section. The process of the drafts is neutrally written. Your restore, In 2008, the final version of the treaty was discovered... has no exact date of the version and its content and contradicts to the paragraph above, The sixth and seventh drafts, made on Dec 29, 1949, and Aug 7, 1950, respectively, ruled that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Japan. and s:Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan. Draft on Nov. 2, 1949 is not the final version of the treaty. The ref., Jung said the November 1949 map was the final version. , but the final version of what? Draft treaty or draft map? Anyway, the map doesn't prove anything. Why the name of the islets was removed from the draft on Dec 29, 1949? Why the ref. mentions nothing about later drafts? I don't think the ref. is unreliable and misleading. Please explain. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

the 1785 map

In the wiki section it said, "According to Korean scholars, the island to the northeast of Ulleungdo represents the Liancourt Rocks, and thus proves Liancourt belonged to Korea at the time. According to Japanese scholars neither of these conclusions are necessary or even probable, as the Liancourt Rocks are located southeast of Ulleungdo."

But these 2 lines make no sense. If you look at the map. The island/rock in question (marked "Korea Held") are in SE direction of the Ulengdo island (which lies right next to the korea peninsular in the map). So it is moot to say that the Koreans were wrong to start with. Please correct, or provide the source of the Korean claiming the "direction" of the rock.

In other words, Korean claims that the rock was well described in the map, and they were indeed in SE, NOT NE of the Ulengdo.

http://record.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/sangokutu/page.html?style=b&part=2&no=2

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WzN3JMZpmGA/TJojaDZ1ONI/AAAAAAAAAyo/fi27KCdr7Y0/s1600/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg

San9663 (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your misunderstanding. Read the sentence carefully, please. "According to Korean scholars, the island to the northeast of Ulleungdo represents the Liancourt Rocks..." It says "the island to the northeast". Not "the islands". The island in the sentence indicates Jukdo (island). You mistook Ulleungdo for the Liancourt Rocks. Oda Mari (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite obvious regarding directions if you look at the map, the island has characters Bamboo-Islands on it. You can measure the direction from the map as well. The source links only to the Japanese official site, but not to any Korean source saying "NE". If you could provide the Korean link about NE it may be more convincing? San9663 (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ulleungdo/Utsuryo was called Takeshima in Japan. See this. So the name 竹嶋 on the map means Ulleungdo. I find nothing wrong with the current version. Oda Mari (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is another island, closer to the east side of Korean Peninsular. I thought that island refers to Ullengdo. In your interpretation, what should that island be? And which island did the Koreans refer to as Dokdo? (The only island which was labeled Korea-held is the "takeshima", right?) I have no interest in this debate. I am neither Korean nor Japanese. I just find it odd and confusing about the statement/quote there. I am most interested in what the Korean actually said. Unfortunately the source does not provide such link. Given the size of the island, it seems more likely to be Ulengdo, which matches your interpretation -- but these ancient maps are never in scale and tends to exaggerate small islands. On the other hand, since it said "此嶋ヨリ隠州ヲ望", the islands should be much closer to 隠州, which argues it is more likely to be Liancourt than Ulengdo?San9663 (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As there is no description for the island, I have no idea about the island near the peninsular. I don't interpret the map. But the shape of the islands looks more like Ulleungdo than Liancourt Rocks and the map says 竹嶋/Ulleungdo then, I naturally took it as Ulleungdo. I am not the one who added the information to the article and I'm not particularly interested in the information either. I only explained what the article and the ref. page say as you seemed to misunderstand the information. Oda Mari (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Ulengdo called Matsushima (pine island) in Japanese? instead of Takeshima (bamboo island)? San9663 (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is here. Oda Mari (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To Xjian77. The island you seemed to think as Ulleungdo is not Ulleungdo and the two islands you seemed to think as Liancourt Rocks are not LR, but Ulleungdo and Jukudo. See the map. There are three islands. There is no description regarding the single big island on the left. The two islands you seemed to think as Liancourt Rocks are described as 竹嶋. But the name indicates Ulleungdo. LR today were called as 竹嶋 then in Japan. [8] So the two islands are Ulleungdo and Jukdo today. I think this is an article about the claim by Korea. Google translation is this. The article says "불어판 삼국접양지도에는 독도와 울릉도에 `조선에 속한다(a La Coree)'라는 문구가 분명히 새겨져 있고 일어판에도 두 섬에 `조선의 소유(朝鮮の持也)'라고 명기돼 있다.". As I wrote above, the name 竹嶋 means Ulleungdo today, LR the Korean article says should be the smallest island on the top right side of 竹嶋/Ulleungdo. Please do not reflect your personal interpretation of the map on our article. Oda Mari (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Greed and Violence

Two problems with this sentence: "This suggests foreign military threat from a third country in Article 4 was not the primary ground of incorporating Liancourt Rocks,[68] but its own violence and greed that Japan is expected to disprove with prima facie evidence in the manner of which the act of incorporation was committed.[69]"

1. Alleging violence and greed on something (Japan?) is inappropriate. 2. The sentence is a grammatical monstrosity.

Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.224.10 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions

Please see these additions. [9] and [10]. I don't think them needed. Even though it's the first find in South Korea, the Taedongyo maps themselves were already known and the National Diet Library owns a woodblock print version. The discovery of one map does not change the situation. As the article is not a list of maps nor a survey of maps and WP:NOTNEWS, I think the additions should be removed. I doubt the importance of the additions. Here are translations of the reference: in en and in ja. Oda Mari (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We did describe the woodblock print map in Japanese Diet Library? If not, why don't we describe the fact which is related to Dokdo? I think it's informative. And the new finding also needed be described, because it could be an evidence for the ownership. --Cheol (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

References concern

Can anyone explain why www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-1877-kobunruko-records is being used as a reference, given that it's a blog, not written by an expert? It doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. Or are we just using it as an indirect link to the historical documents? If so, the reference format should change (since we're not really referencing the blog, it's just a convenient host of the docs). But, do we even have confidence that the docs there are authentic? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

These are all good questions and I would also ask them. I think there is a template you can use to indicate a source that is dubious or needs to be double checked. Shii (tock) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Koburoku contain public records in the public domain? They're all accessible from JACAR, or Japan Center for Asian Historical Resource. I'm not quite sure how to go about this, but aren't sources in the public domain accepted as genuine? Or are some authors/editors on this page not familiar with JACAR material? If not, perhaps one could benefit from getting acquainted with this highly reliable historical source. Lex (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-1877-kobunruko-records . The article is accuate and the website in question is not a "blog" It is linked to both North Gyeongsan Province and Yeongnam University's Dokdo research center. BTW, I've been researching the Dokdo dispute for almost a decade and written articles for the Northeast Asia History Foundation, Korea Herald and Korea Times. I've also visited the islands in question numerous times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulleungdont (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a better question. Why is dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com being cited? The articles on that blog are written by anonymous posters. Read the bottom of the website. These entries should be struck from the record. They are worse than original research, they are written by phantoms...Ulleungdont (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tags at the top

Could anyone justify the tags at the top of the article? They've been there for almost 4 years in some cases. Are there still people who think the article is factually inaccurate or non-neutral? If so, what specifically do you think needs to be fixed? If no one has a specific reason or something to be improved in a while, I'll remove the tags. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The recently contents include the Japanese opinions.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's one issue, some Japanese slipped in the phrase"

"This reply was due to the fact that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and "Matsushima" (Liancourt Rocks) belonged to Oki (隠岐) Province as recorded in Onshu shicho goki ("Records on Observations in Oki Province") of 1677, rather than to Inaba or Hoki Province.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-earliest-records-of-dokdo-ii.html

This is simply not true. The Onshu Shicho Goki described Japan's Oki Islands as the limit of Japan and many Korean and Japanese historians agree.

That quote should be dropped.Ulleungdont (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

dokdo-takeshima.com is a partisan site and I wouldn't rely on it for nonpartisan opinions Shii (tock) 23:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Those tags should be there to indicate that there is some active discussion (and disagreement) about POV issues, not to indicate that the article is not perfectly NPOV. Somebody can always make improvements later, but these tags are not supposed to be "badges of shame". So I've removed them. Shrigley (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that--I totally forgot about my own query. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Three Kingdoms period

The first section of the article "The Three Kingdoms period" does not seem to be related to Liancourt Rocks, nor to Usando, which is discussed in the next section with possible identification with Liancourt Rocks. I thus suggest deleting the first section unless some connections with Liancourt Rocks are made. Kamuichikap (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the section. Anyone is welcome to re-add it, though, if they can show that it's somehow connected to the Liancourt Rocks (be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS, however). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kamuichikap (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Usando is in fact closely if not invariably connected to Liancourt Rocks as characterized in the following: "In Korea, Usando has been known as Takeshima/Tokdo." Kazuo Hori. "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905." Korea Observer. Autumn 1997. p. 480. Hence I shall revert the delete as I have shown there is a connection indeed. The Three Kindoms period is relevant in that the ancient State of Usan is the source of the toponym, from which the islands including Liancourt Rocks derive their historical names. The Shilla conquest of Usan State in 512 was but a culmination of a long historical process that characterised the proto-Three Kingdoms period. Since the conquest, Usan State left no further noticeable impact on mainstream history, but the name lived on in former Usan territories, which at least in part explains why the name Usan appears in proximal islands as well. This variability should not, as some put forth, become sufficient cause to invalidate the toponym wholesale, as there exist a body of concrete references to Liancourt Rocks (or an historical equivalent) via Usando. This last statement mind you is not synthesis, for the current name Liancourt Rocks is but the last in a series of names by which the rocks have been styled. Lex (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be all your original research. Please find a source that explicitly states a connection between the Three Kingdoms period and Liancourt Rocks. Without such a source, the info should not be in the article. The point behind synthesis is that you need to find a single source that makes this direct claim, not take a bunch of different sources and put them together to draw your own claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Appears? All my OR? Without a source? Did you even bother to read my message? It APPEARS you have NOT. Please word your response carefully, as your credibility relies on it. I posed three questions before you before I may proceed based on my perception of YOUR APPROACH. Lex (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Fine, I'll give you what you want. An 18th century scholar Shin, Kyoung-jun 申景濬 wrote in 1756 in Yo'amjonso 旅菴全書 “According to the Yojiji (興地志), some records say Usan and Ulleungdo are the same island. However, looking at the maps, it must be concluded that they are two islands. One must be the island called Matsushima and it follows that these two islands comprise Usan-guk (按 輿地志云 一説于山鬱陵本一島 而考諸圖志二島也 一則其所謂松島 而蓋二島 倶是于山國也).” Is that connection enough? Lex (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Be advised it is Shin that's making the connection, not I, capisce?

Please keep in mind there is a 1RR restriction on this article, and any additional reverting on this particular item by anyone will result in blocks for all offenders. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please (Lexico) provide a source that states that the the islands that either Shin or Yojiji are talking about are the Liancourt Rocks. That's what we need. If you cannot provide such a source, the information must be removed. Nothing in the article or in what you said above makes that connection. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Message for Qwyrxian: If a wikipedia page is acceptable, here is one: Please refer to 松島 (曖昧さ回避): line 8 says 島根県沖にある竹島の古称。 ⇒ 竹島 (島根県) http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%BE%E5%B3%B6_(%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF) But if you need something more scholarly or based on an historical source, I can provide that too. Do let me know. Lex (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source in English: "The Yojigo (Gazetteer) in Chungbo munhon pigo (Augmented Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea), published in 1908, points out that "what is cited in the yojiji as Ullung and Usan belong to Usan'guk, and Usan is what Japanese call 'Matsushima,' thus accurately stating that Usando is Takeshima/Tokdo today. There are many other Korean and Japanese references that show Takeshima/Tokdo as Usando." Kazuo Hori. "Japan's Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905". Korea Observer. Autumn 1997. p. 483. ll. 2-12. Lex (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That last one is the source we need to get it into the article, following what you put there. It should say something like, "According to scholars such as Kazuo Hori, one of the islands of Usan'guk was Usando, which are the modern day Liancourt Rocks." That would then make the necessary connection between the subject of this article and the Three Kingdoms period. If anyone has a reference to the Japanese counter-argument, that could also be added (but we don't have to wait to find that to add this one). Lexico, do you have any objections to me adding this sentence with the reference you provided? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to your adding the sentence you suggested. One minor problem is that I have to revert my change to avoid the 1RR ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:_Lexico_reported_by_User:Phoenix7777_.28Result:_.29). Perhaps you might revert my undoing first and henceforth add your contribution? Will be much appreciated. Lex (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 1RR is a once a day restriction. Of course, that doesn't entitle either of us to 1 revert per day, but the real point of the restriction is that we're talking instead of edit warring. Since we've both agreed to the new wording (your return of the material, plus the sentence and source connecting up 3 Kingdoms with Liancourt), it shouldn't matter much who adds it. However, I see that you've self-reverted per a request by EdJohnston. To be safe, I'll re-add your material, along with the sentence we agree on. No one else has objected, so I don't think there's any edit warring going on. Of course, if there are other editors who still disagree with the addition, they can revert and we'll continue discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section. Because it's irrelevant and it's a mere Korean interpretation today. Samguk Sagi only says about Ulleung-do. No specific description about LR. Besides, both Usan-guk and Silla were ancient kingdoms and they have nothing to do with today's N and S Korea. The modern day interpretation of the record is already mentioned in the lead. This is a dispute article and there was no dispute in that century. BTW, the ref. #10 is a dead link. Oda Mari (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

By that standard everything before 1905 should be removed. Shii (tock) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference to "The Yojigo (Gazetteer)...published in 1908" is chronologically absurd for a section about the Three Kingdoms period. I changed it to the part of the article which talks about contemporary interpretations Shii (tock) 10:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Now wait a minute, your position, Oda Mari and Shii, is, simply put, not fair. By all of our sourcing rules, we need modern, contemporary sources that interpret the primary sources from ancient times. That's how we write all history articles. Oda Mari says that "it's a mere Korean interpretation today". That's exactly what we want! We want the Korean perspective on what ancient documents mean. If Japanese or other non-Korean historians interpret the ancient sources differently, then we should include that information as well. As a matter of fact, information from the 3 kingdoms period itself would never meet WP:RS (or, would, at best be a WP:PRIMARY source). Please explain what type of document you believe will be acceptable to include the modern Korean interpretation that 3 Kingdoms documents refer to LR as ancient Korean territory. Please note that your answer cannot be "none". Please also note that I consider these Korean interpretations to be simply ridiculous...but they are being made by legitimate scholars, and reflect an important opinions worthy of inclusion. I'm not saying that the previous source was the best, but I would like to know what kind of source you will consider acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting. The article should be reorganized like Senkaku Islands dispute. At first, define when and how the dispute began. Then historical background, claims by the countries, historical development, etc. The Three Kingdoms period info./the interpretation of Samguk Sagi should be in the Korean claim section. Oda Mari (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that would be fine, but it's a huge task, and might not happen for a while. Shouldn't verified, relevant (WP:DUE) info remain in the article until such time as someone tackles a re-organization? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, any such rewrite would be very confusing because every heading in the current article is contested by both sides. Shii (tock) 00:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article written by Hori[11] mentions nothing about Samguk Sagi. His discussion begins Joseon period's Sejong sillok chiriji (The gazetteer in the Annuls of King Sejong) (1432). Further, his crucial failure is that the following citation from Yojiji is completely false.

"The Yojigo (Gazetteer) in Chungbo munhon pigo (Augmented Reference Compilation of Documents on Korea), published in 1908, points out that "what is cited in the yojiji as Ullung and Usan belong to Usan'guk, and Usan is what Japanese call "Matsushima,"

Please see Shimane Prefecture's report[12] "If we confirm Yojiji, there is a description about Usando: "It is said that Usan and Ulleung were one island." However there is no such description like "Ullung and Usan belong to Usan'guk, and Usan is what Japanese call "Matsushima,"" (そこで『東国輿地志』を確認すると、于山島に関しては「一説于山鬱陵本一島」とあるが、「欝陵于山皆于山国地。于山則倭所謂松島也」の文言はないのである。)". Or this blog[13] translated the point more in detail although this is not RS. The actual copy of Yojiji can be found here. We shouldn't use Hori's article for the reference. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also we must note that the Hori article predates the discovery of actual Yojiji in 2006. Shii (tock) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I just realized that the topic I created has been so heatedly debated. I still think that this first section "The Three Kingdoms period" is very ill-stated. First of all, the first sentence is grammatically incorrect, since there is no verb after 'reported that'. What I understand from reading the rest of the current version of the section "The Three Kingdoms period" is that Isabu, whoever that is, conquered Usan-guk, and Usan-guk is a kingdom based on Ulleungdo, and Ulleungdo is the same as Usando. Is this correct? Reading the following sections, Ulleungdo doesn't seem to be the same as Usando. What is more problematic is that there is no mention to Liancourt Rocks in this section. I still suggest deleting this section, unless the section becomes logically consistent with the following sections and some connections to Liancourt Rocks are made. Kamuichikap (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I will delete this first section from the reasons I stated above. I would really appreciate if somebody can clarify this mysterious first section, as I honestly do not understand why this section is in this article. Kamuichikap (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You're applying your own interpretation. The source provided makes a connection with the Rocks. This is not to say that the source is correct, but it is what one side claims. That's sufficient to have the info in the article. As Oda Mari says, we may want to consider a reorganization of the article, but that's a big task, and not one I want to undertake (especially when the issue is heating up in the real world again). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. Thank you very much for your comment. I didn't mean to apply my interpretation. I apologize if I sounded like that. You say that the source provided makes a connection with Liancourt Rocks. Sorry that I didn't notice that. In that case, I suggest writing the connection explicitly in the article, not just expecting the readers to look up the source by themselves. (As I wrote above, the reason that I objected this section was that I didn't see the connection with the Rocks.) How about changing the last sentence in the following way: "Ulleungdo, or Ulleung Island, mentioned in Samguk Sagi is, according to the story of Usan-guk, believed to be the same island as Usando, which is identified as Liancourt Rocks by contemporary chroniclers." Kamuichikap (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, are you saying that even a description which was revealed to be false can stay in this article without mentioning so? Anyway I propose the following description with another source and a counter argument. I would appreciate any comment on this.

Korea claims Liancourt Rocks appeared as Usan-guk, which comprised Usando, which Korea claims is Liancourt Rocks, and Ulleungdo (Ulleung Island), in Samguk Sagi (History of Three Kingdoms). However, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan refutes that Samguk Sagi contains a description only that Ulleungdo belonged to Usan-guk, there is no description of Usando at all.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix7777. Writing "Korean claims..." does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia, as the claim cannot represent opinions of all the Koreans. One may write "The Korean government claims" or "A Korean historian Bra Bra Bra claims..." or something similar. Kamuichikap (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected as per source. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence needs to say something like "According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs..." Unless you can verify that the Korean government itself has stopped making the claim. We can't treat the Japanese government's analysis of the primary source as any more or less definitive than the Korean government's. Other than that, the phrasing seems fine to me.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the last sentence needs "According to ..." because the last sentence is about what is written in Samguk Sagi, and does not represent any opinion of any side. It is true that the source cited there is biased on the Japanese side. If you are concerned about that, we may then just cite Samguk Sagi, as a source. Kamuichikap (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For your reference, the original of Samguk Sagi can be found at http://www.khaan.net/history/samkooksagi/samkooksagi.htm Kamuichikap (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Qwyrxian's concern will be raise by someone. However Kamuichikap answered exactly what I was prepared for that concern. What is written in a book or not is not an opinion but a fact. So no attribution is necessary.

I changed "Ulleung Island (Ulleungdo)]] to "Ulleungdo (Ulleung Island).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can't read either Korean or Japanese, so I'm not sure what to make of this. Does Korea still make the claim that the Three Kingdoms contains reference (indirectly ) to Liancourt? If it does, I really don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that they are "officially" wrong. And we definitely can't site the Samguk Sagi itself, because that's a primary source, and we can't use primary sources in this way (for matters of interpretation). However, if no one else objects, I'm willing to trust Phoenix7777 and Kamuichikap. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Then, it now seems appropriate to write "according to..." to make the section not too harsh on the Korean government, for example, "However, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan refutes that Samguk Sagi contains a description only that Ulleungdo belonged to Usan-guk, and there is no description of Usando at all." Thank you Qwyrxian for telling me about the Wikipedia policy on primary sources. I was not aware of this policy. Kamuichikap (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The description "Samguk Sagi contains a description only that Ulleungdo belonged to Usan-guk, there is no description of Usando at all." apply to above rule and MOFAJ never "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source" itself. If you insist that Chinese language is a "specialized knowledge", then we need the attribution. However it is funny if it is a cn:Wikipedia, then the attribution is not necessary. That said, I compromise on the attribution. I added " Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan refutes that" as Kamuichikap suggested. Thank you for your cooperation. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Phoenix7777. I have no problem with the current version of your proposal. Kamuichikap (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a brief note: "Refutes that" doesn't work. First, it's ungrammatical (you can't have refute followed by a that clause); second, it's non-neutral, because the word refute implies that that the argument is correct and compelling. The rest of the proposed passage isn't grammatically correct either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me try revising for grammar and neutrality:

***Someone from Korea*** claimed that the Liancourt Rocks appeared in Samguk Sagi (History of Three Kingdoms). He/She/They stated that the kingdom Usan-guk described in the book consists of Ulluengdo (Ulleung Island) and Usando, which they identify as the modern day Liancourt Rocks. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, however, has stated that while the Samguk Sagi describes Ulleungdo as belonging to Usan-guk, it does not mention Usando at all.

First, I fixed the grammar. Second, I removed the quotations--we don't usually use the quote parameter unless there is something remarkable about the quotation itself--as long as we've accurately summarized, it's not needed. Third, I put in "Someone from Korea", because we need to clarify this--who specifically made the claim? Was it the South Korean government? Was it a fringe nationalist group? Was it a single scholar? As Kamuichikap said earlier, we need to be careful not to attribute the claim to Korea as a whole. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's weird--I took out the quote parameter, but somehow it still shows up. It must somehow be seeing the ref from above. Anyway, I mean for the quotes not to appear in the references. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Liancourt Rocks appeared in Samguk Sagi" and "They stated that the kingdom Usan-guk described in the book consists of Ulluengdo and Usando" are inaccurate as Korean claim and fact. There is no such description in the Samguk Sagi. Korean interpretation is follows.

1. Koreans presume Usando as Liancourt Rocks by records about the Usan-Guk at the Josen period (ex. "It is visible on a fine day. (Korean interpretation: Usando is visible on a fine day from Ulleungdo)".

2. Koreans presume that Usan-Guk consists of Usando and Ulleungdo by above presumption.

3. Koreans retroact the above Usan-Guk presumption to the three Kingdoms period. They say that Usand must have been contained, because Samguk Sagi has the description about Usan-Guk.

Most Koreans' sources are skipping the process of these presumptions. Then even the basic problem looks like the existence of description can not be solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.186.25.170 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkpage please

About the recent edit-war [14] about the "The Three Kingdoms period" section: can I please remind everybody to use this talk page rather than reverting.

Obviously, Qwyrxian has a point in saying that the recent additions sounded non-neutral. At the same time, the section at it was without those additions really made no sense at all, because the reader is told nothing about why this whole story about Ulleungdo would be relevant to the Liancourt Rocks issue in the first place.

All of this is a result of people editing this article with the intention of arguing their own favourite case, rather than with the intention of describing how each of the actual disputants argues theirs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, it does seem to be missing about one sentence. Apologies for not reading the context; I just saw the addition of POV material and reverted. I'll try to get into the sources in the next few days. We'll need a way to explain the connection while accounting for both the Japanese and Korean position, neither one of which we want to accept as fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit is related to the discussion #The Three Kingdoms period which is not resolved yet. Current description in the Liancourt Rocks dispute#The Three Kingdoms period is a Korean claim. So the addition of a Japanese claim by User:BlueSkyWhiteSun is not to be blamed for non-neutral.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I was confused about this issue. We should continue the discussion #The Three Kingdoms period.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just passing by, I found some interesting blog article (albeit on the Korean side of the debate) that has an interview about this issue with a French academic Thierry Mormanne. If someone could find a better source for this interview (maybe an English version), I think it might be an interesting addition to this page. The link is [15].Slee325 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120905111953/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp:80/dy/national/T120830004930.htm to http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120830004930.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080814002422/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2008/july/107498.htm to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2008/july/107498.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

1. N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

1. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of Lexico edits disputed

These edits were reverted by myself as they did not appear to be worded neutrally. Lexico violated 1RR in place on this article and reverted it back to his preferred version. @Future Perfect at Sunrise and Spartaz: Since I was the one who reverted this, please review this and determine whether I was correct in judging the neutrality of the edits in question. @Lexico: This is what you should have done instead of violating the 1RR restrictions in place on this article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Lexico has since reverted back to before they made the changes. He has also posted a bunch of stuff about this here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you meant to say, "before he made the changes," not "before they made the changes." You're not trying to incriminate me AGAIN on the basis of your inaccurate wording, are you?Lex (talk) 1:30 pm, Today (UTC−7)

This cements it. English is definitely not your first language, and that is getting in the way of you understanding me. I have never tried to incriminate you. I don't know where you are pulling these wild accusations from, but if you can't understand English well enough to interact with people here, perhaps editing on enwiki is not the best choice. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What cements what? You're not being honest here. I accepted your request and reversed my only revert, but you said, "Lexico has since reverted back to before they made the changes.(17:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC))" There's only you and me in this, not them, and the last reversal per your request was made before (12:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)). I hope you see the problem of they; I have the slightest idea who they refers to.

I am not sure about your native speaker status, but being sloppy with your wording and not paying attention to what is written (by me, yourself) does not help in resolving this conflict that should not have arisen in the first place but for your liberal definition of revert. Perhaps you should reconsider serving as admin if you are unwilling to do what it takes to participate on this page.Lex (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"They" can be used as a singular and a plural pronoun. In this case, it was used as a singular pronoun. Your other comments don't deserve any further comment. Please stick to the topic and don't start attacking me (or anyone else) simply because you disagree or don't understand well enough to understand the full meaning of the words. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to drag on this mountain out of a mole hill, please write in standard English minding this is international space. Unless you were forced to use the plural pronoun in the genetive case, there's simply no justification for taking the plural pronoun in reference to me in the nominative case, which requires the singular. Good, proper grammar is the way civilized people communicate, I'm sure you too are aware.Lex (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable grammar (and has been for the last 20-30 years). No just drop it. I explained it, so you're just beating a dead horse now. Any other words you need explained? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't if there's ambiguity you want to avoid considering your prior finding fault with the neutrality of my edits. You had made a false accusation on the basis of your sloppy reading of my edits and taking a liberal definition of revert (see WP:RV if you haven't already). Rules of engagement dictate you take care to avoid ambiguous syntax, especially if you have engaged in what is suspected by some to be a prior offense of false accusation. Therefore your use of the singular they in a suspicious context cannot be justified or excused.Lex (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you drop the condescension, Nihonjoe.Lex (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You have abused the notion of revert (please see definition/description in the examples box at WP:RV), where

I did not remove the contentious sentence but simply relocated it to the footnote section, not constituting "A partial reversion;" where

I did not reverse all other contributors' changes to the effect of restoring the article to the previous version, but preserved contentious material, however controversial, in the footnote section, thus not constituting "A complete reversion," either; but where

I re-phrased the wording in the paragraph of the existing article to reduce a redundancy that has crept in in the course of incremental edits since heaven knows when, constituting "A normal change, not a reversion," ...

yet you would characterize my 3-step incremental edits of yesterday, in which I have taken pains to maintain neutrality, as "A complete reversion," departing from the true definition of the word? -- Liancourt Rocks dispute 1RR violation [edit]

Your taking liberty with your personal definition of WP:RV at my expense is below what is expected of an admin, I am sorry to say, and penalizing me on the basis of your slight of hand seems unduly unfair, for my only revert had been provoked by what appeared to be an "obvious vandalism" on your part.

I therefore believe I should not have been penalized by being handed a 1RR warning due to your careless definition of "revert" when I have made only one revert true to the definition of the word. I hence believe an apology is in order.Lex (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You were handed a 1RR warning because you reverted my reverting of your edits. That is specifically forbidden in the rules at the top of this page. As I pointed out, you have been warned about this previously, so you should know by now that if someone reverts your edits on this (or any other Liancourt Rocks) article, you must not go and revert back again. That's what you did this time. There was no sleight of hand (or "slight of hand", for that matter). You have not yet been penalized. I could have simply blocked you for violating the rules of editing this article, but I instead simply warned you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is enforcing the 0RR. I am allowed to make one revert under the 1RR rule, but you make it out as if I made two. As of now, I had to cancel my only revert. As a result, I have been forced to abide by the 0RR, an inequitable situation due to Nihonjoe's arbitrary enforcement of the 0RR instead of 1RR: "An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (See WP:3RR and definition/description in the examples box at WP:RV)Lex (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please go read the rules at the top of the page. Rule #3 states (in part), "This means that, if another editor disagrees with your edit, the edit may be reverted...and may not be reinstated unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit." I disagreed with your edits and reverted them. Therefore, according to the rules above, you may not reinstate the edits unless there is a clear consensus to allow them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I did, and your point is well taken at least in part. Just for the sake of argument, your revert, however, does not adhere to the rules either. See rule #2 (in part) "edits ... must not be immediately reverted. ... should be pointed out and discussed on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least eight hours before reverting them (if you must)." I cannot find your effort to avoid immediate reverting. I cannot find your pointing out and discussing on the talk page. I cannot find your leaving them up for discussion for eight hours before reverting." How can you expect me to abide by the rules to the letter when you take liberty to either abide by or not to abide by the rules to the letter yourself?Lex (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not an editor of this article. The only edits I have made to this article are along those lines. My only job here is to make sure those who are editing the article are doing so in a neutral fashion. This article (and others related to it) are magnets for Japanese and Koreans who want to fight over things and change everything to their preferred point of view. Personally, I couldn't care less about the POV of either party in this whole mess. All I am here for is to make sure (as much as possible) that non-neutral edits by either side get reverted as quickly as possible. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, you changed the section header from "1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island" to "1808 Usando is equivalent to what the Japanese call Matsushima". This removed some information which has not been disputed (Ulleungdo) and changed the meaning from "claimed to be" to "is the same". This may actually be the case, but this is a significant change which needs to be supported and have consensus first.

You also changed a few of the sentences from:

Quoting the Yeojiji, it was further mentioned that Usando was equivalent to what the Japanese then called Matsushima. However, the Yeojiji also stated that "...Usan-do and Ulleung-do are spoken of as the same island..."

to:

It was further mentioned that Usando was equivalent to what the Japanese then called Matsushima.

moving this: "However, Dongguk yeojiji quotes from Dongguk yeoji seungnam that "...some people say Usan-do and Ulleung-do are the same island..." into a note at the bottom of the page. This seems much less helpful, and there is no reason for the quote to be moved. Also, you changed the wording of the quote, which is not generally acceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether I removed information ((a) certain POV(s) or a portion thereof) or gave a good remedy for disinformation/misinformation (a lack of a self-sustaining POV) could be up for debate. I do not know how the para title got up there in the first place, but it appears to me a simple mistake that escaped the editors' scrutiny. If, however, you or someone here were one of the editors who saw it as valid, please convince me that the statement "Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island" did indeed occur in 1808. In case all efforts fail to do this, it could be argued that this is a simple mistake that needs to be replaced by one that can find support. I apologize if I failed to comprehend a preexisting, adequate piece of evidence and supporting arguments that the statement "Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island" did occur in 1808, but that is to be seen.Lex (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken regarding my skipping discussion in the talk page being unfamiliar with certain changes since I stopped contributing years ago. I have brought (although not at the time of my three edits) studies that examined this issue, but this also appeared to constitute a simple mistake that did not amount to a certain, balanced POV but rather a lack thereof, in which case filling in said lack of POV did not seem to constitute a shift in anything but just that, filling a void. The assertion that Yeojiji says "Usan-do and Ulleung-do are spoken of as the same island" is not an unconditional universal truth but a conditional statement the truth value of which is dependent upon the strong presupposition that the lost/fragmented Yeojiji and the extant Dongguk yeojiji are one and the same text. Has this been given compelling, adequate support? If so please enlighten me, as the studies I bring give compelling counter evidence contrary to the strong supposition rendering it and everything contingent upon it untrue.Lex (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the moving of the so-called Yeojiji (after correcting the mistaken title to the correct title Dongguk yeojiji) to the footnote section, this was not intended to make it less useful but that it had no place in the year 1808. The conditional truth contingent upon the identity of Yeojiji and Dongguk yeojiji finds no valid support to the best of my knowledge, but if otherwise, please enlighten me. Are Yeojiji and Dongguk yeojiji indeed the same work? In the absence of positive evidence and compelling reasons giving support, however, the reference to Yeojiji finds no place in the text proper of said paragraph especially given evidence to the contrary. Whether you or others wish to preserve the revised statement referring to Dongguk yeojiji in a footnote is really not up to me; I just don't want to be blamed for removing an irrelevant piece of information (not a shift in POV either way since it has no real impact on whatever POV).Lex (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding wording: Mr Shimojo is known to be in the nasty habit of altering a quoted passage to best meet his end, a practice shunned by classicists and historians alike. It is not known however whether this is due to his lack of a good command of classical Chinese grammar and usage or his scholarly ethics in his strong propensity to resort to blatant "distortions" as some would have it. This is a constantly recurring problem when quoting studies conducted by him. Normally, studies of such questionable quality would be avoided by scholars in mainstream academia, but he seems to be oft quoted owing to the popularity of Dokdo-Takeshima polemics. There is no easy way around this but to hope for more mainstream scholars to participate and redo identical studies, only with more stringent academic standards. In the mean time, I try to correct a misquote when I can if it has a bearing on the thesis in dispute, which is often the case. Unfortunately, I do not always enjoy the luxury of providing two sets of parallel texts, which could get increasingly tiring and time consuming. Nobody likes to be slowed down by the academic overhead of another scholar for the simple reason that it's below one's pay grade.Lex (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph title: I never said you knew how it got the way it was before you edited it. That's completely irrelevant. Please stay on topic. What it boils down to is this: You changed the paragraph title to something with a completely different meaning than what was there before. That's why it was changed back. With all the controversy surrounding this article, no editor can be changing the meanings of section titles or passages in the article like that without discussing the issue here first. End of story.

I don't need to convince you of anything other than getting you to agree to not change the meaning of things in the article without discussing it here first and coming to a consensus with other editors of the article (which doesn't include me, as I don't make edits outside of reverting non-neutral edits). I did not write anything in this article, and I don't ever plan to write anything in this article. This makes it so I have no stake in this process other than neutrality. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sections moved from User talk:Lexico

Liancourt Rocks dispute 1RR violation

Your recent edit violates the 1RR editing restrictions in place on the Liancourt Rocks dispute article. As one of the administrators overseeing the editing of this article due to the ArbCom article probation, your previous edits were undone as the wording in them was not neutral. When this happens, you may not revert the changes without first starting a discussion on the talk page of the article and working out a consensus for those changes. Any further violations of this article probation will result in immediate blocking without further warning. You have been warned about this in the past (just two sections up from this one, in fact), so this should come as no surprise. We appreciate your cooperation with the terms of the article probation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Per your charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my 1st editing, let us discuss first. But you have to qualify your unfounded charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my edit first. Your saying so does NOT make it so.Lex (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved my response to a new section, where you may leave a reply.Lex (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are upset about "Reverted good faith edits". I have no reason to believe you made your edits in bad faith, so of course I assumed they were made in good faith. That's what WP:AGF is all about. Based on your misunderstanding of this, I will work from the perspective that English is not your first language. "Reverted good faith edits" is not a negative thing. It is not a "charge", unfounded or otherwise. It is a statement of what I did: you made good faith edits, and I reverted them because they did not appear neutral to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You have abused the notion of revert (please see definition/description in the examples box at WP:RV), where

I did not remove the contentious sentence but simply relocated it to the footnote section, not constituting "A partial reversion;" where

I did not reverse all other contributors' changes to the effect of restoring the article to the previous version, but preserved contentious material, however controversial, in the footnote section, thus not constituting "A complete reversion," either; but where

I re-phrased the wording in the paragraph of the existing article to reduce a redundancy that has crept in in the course of incremental edits since heaven knows when, constituting "A normal change, not a reversion," ...

yet you would characterize my 3-step incremental edits of yesterday, in which I have taken pains to maintain neutrality, as "A complete reversion," departing from the true definition of the word? Liancourt Rocks dispute 1RR violation [edit]

Your taking liberty with your personal definition of WP:RV at my expense is below what is expected of an admin, I am sorry to say, and penalizing me on the basis of your slight of hand seems unduly unfair, for my only revert had been provoked by what appeared to be an "obvious vandalism" on your part.

Therefore I believe I should not have been penalized by being handed a 1RR warning due to your careless definition of "revert" when I have made only one revert true to the definition of the word. I hence believe an apology is in order.

As for your raising issues with me here, please do so in the Liancourt Rocks dispute talk page where all this can be dealt with close to where that dispute arose. I do not appreciate having to go back and forth only to deal with one issue on account of your mishandling/misplacing. Thank you.

As for the remaining issues, I shall move the material to the Liancourt Rocks dispute talk page.Lex (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Re 1808 para: Demanding qualification for self-proclaimed Admin Nihonjoe's false accusation "Reverted good faith edits"

(moved all material as is per admin Nihonjoe's request. Any previous communication on this issue can be found @ and above page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lexico#Re_1808_para:_Demanding_qualification_for_self-proclaimed_Admin_Nihonjoe.27s_false_accusation_.22Reverted_good_faith_edits.22)Lex (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Per your charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my three edits, let us discuss first. But you have to qualify your unfounded charge ("Reverted good faith edits") against my edits as well. Your saying so does not readily make it so.Lex (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding "Reverted good faith edits". It is explaining what I did, not what you did. I am not saying that you reverted good faith edits. Rather, I am saying that your edits were made in good faith, and that I reverted them. Also, I am not a "self-proclaimed Admin". The community decided that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear at all what you mean by "good faith edits" because what I see in the disputed para, which you claim to be "good faith edits based on consensus" is simply a monstrosity without much exaggeration on my part.

Therefore you are under suspicion of having exercised a leap of logic since you have not specifically presented evidence as to what in my edits were in bad faith, without which your bringing of accusatory claims against my edits becomes an act of pure aggression. Let us examine the status quo prior to my edits.

1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island[edit]

Man'gi yoram (만기요람, "Handbook of State Affairs") from 1808 quotes the earlier Yeojiji ("Gazette") that Ulleungdo and Usando all belonged to Usan'guk Quoting the Yeojiji, it was further mentioned that Usando was equivalent to what the Japanese then called Matsushima.[37] However, the Yeojiji also stated that "...Usan-do and Ulleung-do are spoken of as the same island..."[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute#1808_Usando.2C_Ulleungdo.2C_and_Matsushima_claimed_to_be_the_same_island

1. title: "1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island"

Do you or anyone honestly believe the 1808 work in its text proper or a commentary therein says that "Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island"? This is a highly doubtful possibility, yet Nihonjoe does not hesitate to defend his/her biased version by accusing any rational edit to this distorted para as non neutral and a break from good faith consensus. Who should be at fault here for the blatant bias introduced and defended by this so-called admin Nihonjoe? Why is this person Nihonjoe allowed to parade as admin abusing administrator power? I wonder.

2. confusion between the lost Yeojiji and the extant Donguk yeojiji

"However, the Yeojiji also stated that "...Usan-do and Ulleung-do are spoken of as the same island..."

There is no such Yeojiji with said passage, being a lost, fragmented work found only in excerpts in other works referring to it, and Mr Shimojo's confusion of the two historical works has been duly noted for correction by researchers Park, Pyongseop and Yu, Mirim. Yu in particular notes that certain known fragments from Yu Hyeongwon's Yeojiji do not jive with the extant anonymous Donguk yeojiji text, a clear indication that the two are separate works, and not evidence of Shin Gyeong-jun Redaction. (For this latter to work, at least one key evidence is lacking, whereas the former does not require the forced logical step so desperately needed yet not provided by proponents of Mr Shimojo's "Shin Gyeong-jun redaction hypothesis". Occham's razor would again favor the simpler explanation even if such evidence were provided in the absence of further evidence supporting redaction.)

See the following

A. 유미림, 한국 문헌의 ‘울릉ㆍ우산’ 기술에 관한 고찰 - ‘신경준 개찬’론에 대한 비판

Study on the Description of 'Ulleung, Usan' in Korean Documents: A Critical Examination of 'Shin Gyeong-jun Redaction Hypothesis' 동양정치사상사 제8권 제1호, 2009.3, 185-211 http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE01178472

B. 朴炳涉, 下條正男の論說を分析する 2

영남대학교 독도연구소, 독도연구 7, 2009.12, 87-116 http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/NODE02076691

3. As for removing redundant information, what could be in bad faith? Do demonstrate your accusation in meaningful words and not sweeping, unqualified, defamatory remarks.

" quotes the earlier Yeojiji ... Quoting the Yeojiji "

The last should not require further elucidation, and the accuser failed to respond in a rational manner for the first two even though I have left clear remarks as to the reasons for each edit. Not having read those remarks, who is he/she to pass sweeping judgments as if all-knowing on his/her so-called neutrality and consensus on good faith? Apparently he/she has dishonestly chosen to disregard them seeking a convenient excuse under the umbrella clauses "Reverted good faith edits" and "1RR violation". The obvious result is the chaotic state of the present para rife with contradictions. How else could it be when one introduces dishonest pseudo-academic work for the superficial appearance of so-called neutrality, which, upon closer examination, is proven to be based on a falsehood or falsehoods?

The information contained in this para is expected to pertain to a primary record or a commentary on a prior historical remark thereof, which occurred in the 1808 work called Man'gi yoram. Yet the title "1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island" is way off it. What makes you think that the Man'gi yoram passage was meant to convey what the para title suggests by "1808 Usando, Ulleungdo, and Matsushima claimed to be the same island"?

I have merely discovered a contradiction between a misleading para title and its content, so why is my edit being challenged as non neutral and in bad faith?

An historical record is by definition neutral; it is what it is. That paragraph is there to convey what was said and thought at that time, not some biased words of a biased researcher in his/her twisted distortion created in a work of shoddy academic rubbish, which by the way, I refrained from deleting, but transferred to the footnote section instead so as to preserve neutrality as best I can. And yet this Nihonjoe accuses me of non neutrality and bad faith? People who do not read edits should in all honesty refrain from leaving comments unless they wish to be accused of disruptive behavior or want to make fools out of themselves for the simple reason that they have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

So if you seriously want to claim a violation of good faith, you have to demonstrate your good faith by actually pointing out that I have presented the material in bad faith, "the burden of proof lying with the accuser, not with the defendant." If you have failed to do so already, and should you continue in this line of behavior, you shall have demonstrated nothing but your biased stance and bad faith -- the very offense with which you have been attempting to characterize my edits.

Thus my editing of the misleading title is justified, and your charge against my editing remains to be qualified.

Let me reiterate in summary: the para title was a gross misleading distortion of the historical information which leaves little room for revisionism as Nihonjoe has tried time and again based on shoddy pseudo-academic work.

So please go ahead and prove 1) that my revision was in bad faith and 2) that your revert was in good faith.

We have yet to see a valid demonstration of Nihonjoe's "good standing" in light of his/her misbehavior he/she has exhibited today and before.

In the case Nihonjoe fails to respond in an honest, informed, unbiased response in good faith, I shall proceed to undo Nihonjoe's unjustified undo due to his/her violation of good faith ("obvious vandalism").Lex (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I give every one who wishes to participate in the discussion on the subject matter 24 hours to make an honest, informed, unbiased response in good faith.Lex (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not issue ultimatums. There is no time limit on this discussion (which should be over at Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute, not here). Please move the discussion there to keep it all in one place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not an ultimatum, but in reference to your evocation of the 1RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (See WP:3RR.) Here's your chance at what you call non-neutral about my edit, so bite if you can in an honest, informed, unbiased response in good faith.Lex (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The rules as applicable here is clearly spelled out above. Especially rule #3. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RE 1RR: You made the first revert, while my edits were "good faith edits" according to you. Please do not count your revert as mine.

RE neutrality of my wording: speak up in what way my edits were non-neutral.Lex (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722140702/http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/board/gongi4/view.php?tbname=gongi4&number=1474&page=1 to http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/board/gongi4/view.php?tbname=gongi4&number=1474&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130708124424/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/08/177228.html to http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/08/177228.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913071653/http://www.mofa.go.jp:80/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_e.pdf to http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913071653/http://www.mofa.go.jp:80/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_e.pdf to http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Two Factual Misrepresentations in Para. 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

I just discovered two factual errors in para. 8: 1) quoting an interlinear passage while disregarding the text proper to which the note was attached in the first place; 2) the title in question has been misrepresented -- truncated to the effect that the unsuspecting reader would more likely than not be mislead to believe what might not be sufficiently true -- in a logical slight of hand violating the laws of syllogism, a practice forbidden in Aristotelian logic since its rediscovery at the beginning of the Renaissance. Hence I am giving fair notice to all concerned whether anyone objects to my planned correction thereof. In the event of non-contention within 24 hours or its whereabouts, I shall proceed with your unambiguous, unanimous support. Thanks all, cheers. Lex (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can state clearly and concisely—without a lot of flowery nonsense language which appears to exist solely to confuse and misdirect—what your proposed changes are, they will be immediately reverted. Thanks, and cheers. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Nihonjoe. Thank you for the cordial heads-up; hence we shall proceed slow paced so as not to confuse or misdirect as one prior editor had perpetrated in our absence. We shall fix it (them) properly while not in a slapdash. No siree, dear Nihonjoe! For although this might be only one small step for a man, or a woman if you will, it is nevertheless one giant leap for mankind. It is in that manner in which the great intellect Sir Socrates silenced the confounding, misdirecting sophists of Athens that we shall weed out the confounding, misleading falsehoods so that history might once again move forward and not retard into the sorry state of medieval darkness!

First off, the caption attached to the illustration for para. 8 carries a title different from 「東国興地志」 as stated in the media file: you can verify this here;(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liancourt_Rocks_dispute#/media/File:Usando_in_Yojiji_1656-red_frame.png).

Hence the misquote "Yeojiji" shall be written "Dongguk yeojiji," otherwise it becomes original research and an attempt to confound and mislead the reader. You as officer of Wikipedia page "Liancourt Rocks dispute (section)" ought to have noticed this sooner than anyone else. I'm surprised you missed it; been busy lately? You might consider stepping down if your personal affairs, state of mind, or what have you leads you to neglect your public duties and renders you unfit for the job.Lex (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lexico: First off, your comments come off as extremely arrogant, so please drop the attitude. It will only get you in trouble here, and no one will want to work with you. As for being an "officer of Wikipedia page 'Liancourt Rocks dispute (section)'", I have no idea what that means as there is no such position and nothing here which would imply such a position. You have a lot of English words coming out of your fingers, but I don't think you know English very well. If you are referring to the "Suggested Rules of Engagement" notice at the top of the page, the admins listed there only keep an eye on this page so crazies from either side in the dispute don't get out of hand. We don't scrutinize every word in the article. There are no "public duties" involved.

Regarding the difference between "Dongguk yeojiji" and "Yeojiji", it is hardly "misrepresentation". Whoever put that information there likely just shortened it. This is not uncommon as image captions should lean toward the shorter end of things. Otherwise, they become hard to read. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever language Nihonjoe aims to type.. arrogance flows through his fingers as he tries to point it out in Lex's. Lex initially started to write on a cordial note but Nihonjoe ,who was able to interfere with the Liancourt rocks article while no one else seemingly could'nt, orders Lex to "Drop the attitude" while ignorant of the details of issue that Lex pointed out. I agree with Lex on that it is absurd that some particular person could correct information on a international issue while someone else couldn't. Maybe the wikipedia decided to protect the Liancourt rocks article only a few hours ago and blocked my contributions to it, but something tells me it is not what it's supposed to be done. Cheers. Lisa9921 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Lisa9921, it's obvious you haven't read through the highlighted text at the top of this page. Editing restrictions have been in place since 2007: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks#Liancourt_Rocks_article_probation --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I probably misunderstood the wikipedia policy while trying to correct the term Sea of Japan to The East Sea in the Liancourt rocks page. However, using the name Sea of Japan instead The East Sea is geographically "wrong" and not "disputable". It is a very common misbelief and westerners tend to get them confused because the area is contingent upon Japanese territory. I am comfortable with Korean, and had no trouble reading several complaints in the Liancourt Rocks page that the Sea of Japan be corrected to The East Sea. I thought someone could at least try to rectify a very common misconception. To some, the mistake, as simple as it is, undermines the trust we have on wikipedia as if someone might just assert Cu is the core component of the Atomic clock; Cs is the element for time precision. People don't usually encounter Cs in everyday lives and wouldn't notice much difference one way or another. But wikipedia is an internationally loved source of intellect and I would appreciate wikipedia much more if it would care to be corrected,though it may concern a relatively obscure topic such as Liancourt rocks or Cs, based on solid truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa9921 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Liancourt Rocks dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223194449/http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/15C/shiragi6.html to http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/15C/shiragi6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223203922/http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/15C/rusan.html to http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/15C/rusan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223203935/http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/chirisi.html to http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/tizu/chirisi.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102234802/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_2.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102221341/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_1.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720173811/http://www.dokdocenter.org/new/history/person_main.htm?tb=openb_person_02&curDir=history&idx=1&page=1&searchfield=&searchword=&mode=r to http://www.dokdocenter.org/new/history/person_main.htm?tb=openb_person_02&curDir=history&idx=1&page=1&searchfield=&searchword=&mode=r
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428152125/http://user.chollian.net/cgi-bin/ics/ics.cgi?id=zstokdo&db=notice&action=read&num=113&vnum=99&&page=2&ftype=0&fval=&backdepth=1 to http://user.chollian.net/cgi-bin/ics/ics.cgi?id=zstokdo&db=notice&action=read&num=113&vnum=99&&page=2&ftype=0&fval=&backdepth=1
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130124163448/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_4.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_4.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-1877-kobunruko-records
• Added archive https://archive.is/20050212171003/http://www.uljin.go.kr/home/www/Uljin_Introduce/history/ to http://www.uljin.go.kr/home/www/Uljin_Introduce/history/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130125084451/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219160146/http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/Daehan.jpg to http://hosting.ohseon.com/hanmaum/seokdo/Daehan.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202122559/http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/main.asp?cate=4&sub_num=67&pageNo=1&state=view&idx=36 to http://english.historyfoundation.or.kr/main.asp?cate=4&sub_num=67&pageNo=1&state=view&idx=36
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nmemo.blog72.fc2.com/blog-entry-4109.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120815025727/http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo to http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130124151613/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_6.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_6.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.megapass.net/~phoong1/dokdo/simane4.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219160144/http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf to http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722140850/http://www.iks.or.kr/koreaobserver/article.asp to http://www.iks.or.kr/koreaobserver/article.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.megapass.net/~phoong1/dokdo/ai.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hanmaum.web-bi.net/dokdo/DocuPic/an_yongbok.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hanmaum.web-bi.net/dokdo/DocuPic/Ahn.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130124151613/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_6.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_6.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.megapass.net/~phoong1/dokdo/simane01.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219160145/http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/kochokoho/photo/161/05.data/05-01.jpg to http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/kochokoho/photo/161/05.data/05-01.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.megapass.net/~phoong1/dokdo/simane06.jpg
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.megapass.net/~phoong1/dokdo/simane05.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823094425/http://english.dokdohistory.com/dokdo-history/dokdo-korean-territory.asp to http://english.dokdohistory.com/dokdo-history/dokdo-korean-territory.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617091848/http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=500527006 to http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=500527006
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000005/1256.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/00000007/23-01-06.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219160145/http://www.koreaembassy.org/bilateral/political/recent_img/dokdo0717.pdf to http://www.koreaembassy.org/bilateral/political/recent_img/dokdo0717.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130125200947/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130125200947/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130125200947/http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html to http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://blog.empas.com/ohbosco/read.html?a=6757250
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205183642/http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/board/gongi6/view.php?tbname=gongi6&number=5&page=1 to http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/board/gongi6/view.php?tbname=gongi6&number=5&page=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://118.129.184.33/pub/docu/kr/AM/AA/AMAA2006ACG/AMAA-2006-ACG.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722135746/http://taxad.co.kr/nonmun_yoyag.htm to http://taxad.co.kr/nonmun_yoyag.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cybership.koje.ac.kr/html/main.htm?pageNum=2&sub=1&dm=2
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130124165914/http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/Ham_1_3_Corrupt_Christian_Regime.htm to http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/Ham_1_3_Corrupt_Christian_Regime.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002110419/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWkGA3-H4Fl_nZXqJpfd5TN9v8xg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWkGA3-H4Fl_nZXqJpfd5TN9v8xg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Seokdo

Please look at this article and Liancourt Rocks dispute#1900 Korean Imperial Decree No. 41 separates Uldo Archipelago from Uljin County. There are also babel fish articles de:Seokdo, fr:Seokdo. ja:利用者:Greenland4 is been doing this for a long time (commons:User_talk:Greenland4#Maps_and_Global_Mission). It looks like a J-POV nationalistic fighter for Takeshima on global mission. Also there are problems in ja.wiki ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼/Greenland4 with his sources etc. and the problems are going global. --Neojesus (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)