Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Dokdo


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

Mediation open
Here we start the mediation. Firstly I want to know about the discussion topic. So please write your comments below with maximum of 120 words with valid arguments. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 06:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Wikimachine
The conflicts are primarily results of Opp2's extreme JPOV stance.
 * Opp2 can't stand how "Japan disputes the S. Korean jurisdiction" & advocates "Japan and S. Korea disputes over the..." instead. Grammatically & in plain logics, S. Korea doesn't have to dispute its own claim when it has complete right over the island.
 * Opp2 states that "despite Japanese protest" must be included in conjunction with the statement "controlled by S. Korea" (similarly worded) within the same sentence. "Japan protests/disputes" is already included in the introduction, but Opp2 insists on phrasing the words that way because "it leaves a more lasting impression" and it's international NPOV (never heard of). Opp2's suggestion makes the introduction sound really really awkward.
 * International POV: Opp2 says that without directly acknowledging Japanese protest, its validity of protest becomes ignored (???). I personally have no idea on what he's talking about, but if he sees this article as a vehicle to contest S. Korea's sovereignty over the island, no. S. Korea owns the island, just like Japan owns Tsushima & there's nothing that can be done about it.
 * References: Opp2 reverts my edit that include hours of work that resulted in genuine references. I'm not even sure if Opp2 ever looked at them, but he says that I never consulted with him over the POVness of the references... It seems that he's taking "revenge/comeback" for me rejecting his references with valid reasons. All he told me was "I'll talk to the mediator". (Wikimachine 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Terra nullius: Plenty of refs that I've provided at the Dokdo talk page say that the Japanese government took the island under terra nullius. Opp2's scholar is advocating a new position -as any scholar would do when writing a paper. (Wikimachine 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Comments from Opp2

 * Dokdo is [syc] currently administered by South Korea, ….

In International Law, not “administered” but “occupied” is appropriate. Because a Korean activity is invalid by Japanese protests. Please read this VAN’s thesis (p.16-p23). UN also say “Sovereignty is unsettled”(See Liancourt Rocks). Despite this VAN’s thesis was presented from KPOV side, inconvenient part for Korea is excluded as OR. And, because “Dokdo” is Korean name, it is necessary to describe that clearly first for NPOV.


 * Japanese claims come from [syc], as well as a "terra nullius" incorporation in 1905.

This is not Japanese claim. A Korean thesis is a source of this description and "terra nullius" is generated.

In addition, the edit that weakened the impression of "Dispute" was performed without the discussion.--Opp2 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "UN also say “Sovereignty is unsettled”(See Liancourt Rocks). " Please fix your link as the current one does not fit into this discussion.

Comments from Ginnre
Sorry I'm late but I want to leave my short comment. Basically I like the current opening paragraph as-is. It has been established to the current form after long discussion. However, Opp2 raised objections against using the term 'terra nullius' in the paragraph. It was meant that although some scholars used the term to describe the situation at that time, official Japanese position never used the term. If this claim is correct, I can accept to modify that part without using the term 'terra nullius'. Other than that, I don't see much need to modify the opening paragraph. Opp2's referring to international law and details are not appropriate in the opening paragraph. Those can be mentioned in a proper length balanced with what Korean side says later. Opening paragraph is to introduce an object and the status quo of the object in a concise way. No more than that should be included and that was what's been discussed and came to the concensus for the current one. Ginnre 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo Introduction
Please write Dokdo Introduction below according to you with citing all the references and using proper grammer in proper format. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine's Suggested Introduction Fix
Dokdo is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) administered by South Korea and claimed by Japan. Other names of the island include Takeshima in Japanese, and Liancourt Rocks in English, after a French whaler who charted the islets in 1849. In English, the South Korean government refers to Dokdo as "Dokdo", and the Korean Central News Agency of North Korea as Tok Islet.

Japan disputes South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo, based on historical records extending back to the seventeenth century, and the 1905 terra nullius incorporation. Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.

South Korea bases its claim on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do. North Korea publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".

OPP2's PROPOSAL
Dokdo (Takeshima) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) whose sovereignty remains unsettled. The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954 despite repeated protests by Japan. Takeshima is the Japanese name, officially given when Japan incorporated it into the Shimane Prefecture in 1905. And Dokdo is the Korean name, which the Koreans formally gave in 1906, after Japan notified them of its incorporation. The islets had been also known as the Liancourt Rocks in English, since the French whaling ship charted the islets in 1849.

Japanese claims are based on seventeenth century records and a reconfirmation of their intent to incorporate it into the Shimane Prefecture, as they did in 1905. Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.

Korean claims are based on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the Gyeongsangbuk-do.

Meaning of "critical date":In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue. It is exclusionary, and it is terminal. Hence is most frequently resorted to in territorial disputes to indicate the period within which a party should be able to show the consolidation of its title or its fulfillment of the requirement of the doctrine of occupation. --Opp2 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ginner's Suggestion
Current paragraph as-is without the term 'terra nullius' or Wikimachine's. Ginnre 06:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ginnre. Opp2's introduction has parts that I do not like and seems to be leaning towards the pro-Japanese point of view. It's either w/o "terra-nullius" or Wikimachine's introduction. --DandanxD 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed and deadline to produce introduction
Wikimachine mentions in the first paragraph of the intoduction: In English, the South Korean government refers to Dokdo as "Dokdo" with citing a reference. The statement itself is confusing and the reference also does not make a clear-cut idea. Please either cite the proper reference or modify the line accordingly. In addition to that, if other parties want to propose other intoduction then they could make it within two more days. The introduction after 07:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) would not be acceptable. Shyam ( T / C ) 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's confusing w/ common daily logic/etc. but really that's the best I could go in order to show how the two Korean government refer to the island officially. So, what you mean by proper reference is an official paper from the S. Korean government? The citation is from the S. Korean government's English website, Korea.net. (Wikimachine 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Proposed introduction draft
Here I am going to propose draft of the Dokdo introduction. I suppose, the most of the present introduction part is the NPOV that requires slight modification.

Dokdo (Takeshima in Japanese ) is a group of islets in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), where sovereignty is still unsettled. Dokdo is currently disputed group of islets between South Korea and Japan, which is currently administered by South Korea. The islets are also known as the Liancourt Rocks (in English) after the French whaling ship Liancourt which charted the islets in 1849.

Japan disputes South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo, based on historical records extending back to the seventeenth century, and the 1905 terra nullius incorporation. Japan designates the islets as a part of Okinoshima Town of the Oki District in Shimane Prefecture.

South Korea bases its claim on records that date back to the sixth century, including the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance that officially incorporated Dokdo into the modern-day Ulleung County of the North Gyeongsang province. North Korea publicly supports the control of the island by "the Korean nation".

Acceptance of intro draft
Agree Please sign your agreements below using 4 tildes ( ~ ), if you completely agree with the proposal.

Disagree Please mark your points on which you disagrre. But be brief and describe in maximum of three lines making specific points within three days. After 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) any points about disagreement would not be considered. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I suggest that minor grammar & style errors be fixed. The first two sentences sound repetitve, as they both mention "disputed". Also, avoiding passive tense & using active tense might be better. (Wikimachine 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
 * These two sentense do not seem to me repetitive as they illustrate seperate points. Please let ne know the correction about active-passive and grammatical errors. Shyam  ( T / C ) 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree Please do not run away from the contradiction of your proposal. Let's accomplish the accountability. Is the sovereignty of South Korea set though sovereignty is unsettled why?--Opp2 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.