Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

North Korea?

This [1], claiming North Korea to be a third party also claiming the islets, seems dubious and is entirely unsourced. It also contradicts a statement made in the article body, according to which North Korea supports South Korea's claim (although that statement isn't very well sourced either). Propose removal as most likely flat out wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. North Korea has issued the islets stamps twice, in 2004 and 2005, they have been claiming not loudly though. See this and its translation.And as for 2005 stamps, see these. [2] and [3]. See also [4] and [5]. Oda Mari (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But those stamps seem to be claiming them only for Korea as a whole, not specifically for North rather than South Korea, or am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care whether it's included in the article or not. Because there seems to be no RS in English. And some say North Korea was not that serious about the territory matter but they just wanted to sell stamps and get some foreign money. I just want you to know it was not a groundless addition. No RS though, North Korea's basic thought is the peninsula is ours, so is the islets. See this. I don't know why but Google refused to translate the page. That was why I didn't include the link in my last post. I c&p the text and G-translated. It's terrible. To make the long translation short, Japan protested about the 2005 stamps, sending fax from their embassy in China to the North Korean embassy in China. The North Korean embassy sent it back, saying "Not worthy to talk about. Dokodo is North Korea's territory. That is a historical fact that no one can deny."
This is the translation.
The two countries through the embassy in Japan and North Korea, North Korea has issued "Dokdo (lip, Takeshima in Japan) stamp" over, was found to be battlefields while exchanging fax .
The Japanese government last May, the North "Ecology of Dokdo," was claimed by the islets of the stamps, send a letter of protest to the embassy via fax in the Japanese Embassy in North Korea or. The document obtained by Yonhap News Agency on August 22 "Takeshima is a point that there is no doubt that part of Japan from the standpoint of international law and historical fact, long repeat your country (North Korea) to have pointed out, "trying.
The Japanese government also said, "that your country once again to issue these stamps is not meet that fundamental position on Takeshima in Japan and, as Japan is not sanctioned," it said. Embassy of North Korea was against it, "the document was faxed from the Japanese side did not even debatable, even the loss of value received something strange," to argue with the statement, the documents sent back to the Japanese Embassy.
North Korea's embassy also said, "and points North territory Dokdo is a historical fact nobody can deny. North and South (North Korea) is a hard fact that the article also proves the history of Japan and of course the world" and " Dokdo is impossible for a compromise or any deal, "he said. Fax controversy was prompted "Dok" is on sale in Korea recently, it has gained popularity among Korean American in Korea as well. Oda Mari (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant translations

Can't see the use of this: [6]. The Korean names are already given as literal translations of "East Island" and "West Island" mentioned immediately before. Why translate them back yet again? It's totally redundant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to have redundant translations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

They seem like they belong to me. The terms "West Islet" and "East Islet" are the English names, while the other two pairs (West & East Island, and Male * Female Island) are translations of the Korean and Japanese names, respectively. In fairness, I think that if you take out the Korean translations, you need to remove the Japan translations, too). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, the difference is that the Korean names are the precise translation equivalent of what is quoted as the English names immediately before (or rather, the English "names" only exist qua translation from the Korean), and I think any reader can immediately understand that. Whereas the Japanese names simply mean something else, so they need to be translated separately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

After a long period of indefinite semi protection this article was unprotected and placed on flagged revisions instead in June. Almost without exception every IP edit since then has been either vandalism or just generally unhelpful - this is apparently not a very good candidate for pending changes experiment, so I've put it back to standard semi-protection to save everyone time and watchlist space. Let me know if anyone disagrees. ~ mazca ^talk 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical data for Liancourt Rocks page

Wikipedia editors for Liancourt Rocks page.

I have primary historical records that may be of importance to you. The Liancourt Rocks article states "Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo on a clear day" and requested "citation needed" on point #12, I believe.

This is a true statement confirmed by historical documents such as the 1901 and 1903 editions of the Japanese Black Dragon's Chosun Fishing Manual, the 1696 Korean Ulleungdo Sajeok and Chosun 1714 Report on coastal defences.

All of the primary historical records (translations and original images) can be found on this page.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/a-visual-study-of-dokdo.html

Feel free to use and link for reference.

Ulleungdo (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Koreans-made pollution?

After reading the sections about pollution thingy, I was horrified;

in fact, I and many Koreans never heard of this issue.

And I do not think we are some kinda fools (some person who wrote this can be... but)

Can anyone correct this erratic section?

Besides, please enable editing, because this is no good for the quality of this article, as seen in this case.

--175.198.117.212 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The information seems to be well sourced--do you have some reason to suggest the sources used are not reliable? If the info is well sourced, and there is a consensus that the info is relevant to the subject, then it should probably remain. Of course, if you have other sources that state that the problem has been fixed or is not actually a big deal, that info could be added as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As for editing, it is possible to edit the article, for all autoconfirmed editors. All you need to do to edit the article is sign up for an account, and after a short period of time (a few days and a few edits), you will be able to edit this article. Of course, you'll have to follow all of our policies and guidelines when doing so, but that's true for all editors. The reason this article is protected is that there is a long history of editors with either a strong Korean or Japanese point of view attempting to make unilateral changes that aren't neutral in nature. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Orthodromic distance

I have spotted a difference between this page and the miror article of the French WP. The version in English (with this newspaper as source) claims that the islets are located 250 km from Japan proper (data given since 21 May 2005) and 216 km from mainland Korea (distance given since 19 September 2005). The version in French (with this site as reference) states that the rocks are situated only 212 km from Japan's main island.

So I used the WP page about Great-circle distance (and the miror articles in French and German) to try to verify, and two sites (lacosmo.fr and koordinaten.de) gave the same results: Liancourt West Island (37°14′31″N 131°51′55″E) is about 216 km from mainland Korea (37°03′40″N 129°26′18″E) while the East Island (37°14′27″N 131°52′10″E) is about 212 km from Japan proper (35°28′12″N 132°43′41″E).

I think the French version is correct and, if nobody objects, I will change the distance to 212 km. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The distance you measured using the "Free Map Tool" is your original research and should not be used for Wikipedia. Here is a reliable source from the Ministry of Foreign Affair of Japan. It says 215km from Korea and 211km from Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I corrected it per MOFA page. Oda Mari (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Original research was the figure you accepted for six years. And mathematics don't lie (in particular if the result has only a 1 km difference with official figures). It would have been more fair to say that my contribution was describing the reality and correcting an obvious mistake but that it was lacking an undisputed source. Anyway, thanks for finding an adequate reference. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Original research policy came to be further and further established as Wikipedia matured. In the early days it didn't exist. In 2005 I think it only meant to original scientific research. Now it's a core policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Check this: --Mscho527 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Global Security Org. Posts third pic from the upper side. If you look at this, 216km that is written as the distance from Korea is value when you measure from the mainland. It should be changed to the value when you measure from Ulleung Island, which is the nearest Korean Island. Or, you should change the value of the distance from Dokdo to Japan to the value that is measured from Dokdo to Japanese Mainland. Leaving it to current state is wrong from the fact that encyclopedias should have same criteria on measuring things.

Naming consistency

We need some consistency for place names used in Wikipaedia.

The Pinnacle Islands (also called Diaoyu Islands in Chinese and Senkaku Islands in Japanese) is called Senkaku Islands in Wikipaedia because the islands are controlled by Japan.

Why is it that Dokdo (which is controlled by Korea) is called Liancourt Rocks here instead of Dokdo? The article name should be changed to Dokdo Marcopolo112233 (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually doesn't strive to have cross-article consistency, at least not the way you mean. In any event, choice of name has only a little bit to do with who controls the islands, and is instead based almost entirely on is commonly used in English. Here, Dokdo and Takeshima are used about equally in English, so a compromise name was chosen. However, there's a lively debate going on at Talk:Senkaku Islands if you have any factual, policy based advice about what that article should be called, you're welcome to give it over there. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying Wikipaedia does or does not strive to have cross-article consistency. But I am saying Wikipaedia (as well as all other proper encyclopaedias) *SHOULD* stay neutral, and have consistency in the choice of politically sensitive names.

I doubt there is evidence that Dokdo and Takeshima are used equally in English. Given these things are hard to prove, it doesn't look like a good way to decide which name to use. Don't you think?

Giving a Japanese name to a Japanese controlled island while refusing to use a Korean name for a Korean conrolled island doesn't look very balanced. Marcopolo112233 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the archives of this page (links are in the upper right corner)--there are hundreds of K worth of evidence that the usage is approximately equal. And whether or not you think it's a good way is irrelevant: it's what our guidelines require. And, again, what Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai/Pinnacle is named is irrelevant here. If you want this article name to change, you will need to provide solid, convincing arguments that Dokdo is the most commonly used English name. I recommend reading WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) and WP:Article titles, our two main guidelines regarding this issue, when seeing what kind of evidence is necessary. Note that any evidence you provide will have to be extremely compelling to persuade people to change the current consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Liancour Rocks is not a compromised article name. But the common name. Move proposals were Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks → Takeshima → Dokdo → Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks. It was almost always Dokdo vs Liancourt Rocks. LR has never been a household name. But it has been always used on the government level. See Rusk documents, s:Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan, and s:Memorandum in regard to the Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima Island) controversy . Even in Japan, the islets were called "リャンコ島/Ryanko-to" in Meiji period. The name originated from LR. (Because of the romanization system, R is used for L and K for C.) See this. And these too. [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Bonin Islands are controlled by Japan and the ja name is Ogasawara Shotō. But this is en WP, and we use the most commonly used name in English speaking countries, "Bonin Islands". Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevant deletion discussion

There is a deletion discussion related to this article at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dokdo/Dokdo or Takeshima. Quigley (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Janeeuni, 18 August 2011

Dok Island is located in East Sea, South Korea. It is incorrect to say its location as "Sea of Japan (East Sea)". First, Sea of Japan is not as same as East Sea. Second, since Dok Island is a part of Korea and is administered by Korean Government, it is in East Sea, South Korea. Japan has been claimed that it is their island, although it has been a part of Korea for thousands of years. In short, please correct its location to East Sea. Janeeuni (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Quigley (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan is the standard name on Wikipedia as well as in world media; "East Sea" is only used here as a concession to Korean right-wingers. Shii (tock) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hosaka Yuji (保坂祐二)

Got any information about him? He's a Japanese university professor (later acquired a South Korean citizenship) who supports Korea's position in this island dispute. He once said that "Japan legally gave up Takeshima/Dokdo 45 years ago". (citation:“日 45년전 이미 독도 포기… 일본인 국익 앞에선 理性을 속여”) Komitsuki (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of information here: ja:反日亡国論 Shii (tock) 06:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Try a Prototype Wiki Interface

I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University researching ways to improve a reader’s understanding of Wikipedia history by putting it in context. I recently completed a prototype tool called ‘Pivot’ that brings edit history to the sentence level rather than line-by-line, edit-by-edit as the current interface does. As I continue development, I’d really like some feedback from active Wikipedians as to what works, what doesn’t, and how it might be used. Since one of the articles I've pre-processed is this one, I was wondering if any regulars would be willing to give it a quick look and give me some comments.

To use the prototype, you can visit this external links that layers the tool on top of the article: Liancourt_Rocks article tool

When you load the page, on the right hand side you’ll see four colored bars that match up with the scroll bar. These become more saturated if sentences in the region of the page have more edits (red), more contributors (yellow), a greater percentage of reverts (green), or were edited more recently (blue). Clicking on those bars will highlight the text, darkening sentences that have more edits, etc. so you can identify interesting areas to explore. Once you’ve picked out an interesting sentence, click on it to open up the history for that sentence. A new frame will pull open (some scrolling may be required thanks to a pernicious bug, sorry). In that frame you can see the most recent edit at the top of the list, and then previous edits going down into the past, along with editor names and comments. Words that have been added in an edit are highlighted in green. In turn, you can highlight the sentences that a contributor has made edits to in that window.

Would you be willing to give me some comments either through my talk page or an anonymous survey? I’m particularly interested in whether you think the tool helped you uncover the sorts of information I mentioned earlier, if you see any use for it in your daily editing tasks, and what you think could be improved. Are there particular situations that this tool would really help you out?

If you know of any other Wikipedians who might also be willing to help, I'd appreciate you linking them in. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You ought to consider getting a Toolserver account and making this tool broadly available. I think it might be very helpful in editing disputes to show which parts are the most disputed, and therefore allow better focus on the actual issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out! The goal is to do a big deployment for all Wiki pages in the near future once all the bugs are clear and the sentence history algorithm accuracy is better. The trouble is that Toolserver accounts actually don't have enough power to do the kinds of processing that this technique needs, so we're working on ways to enable more advanced things like this on Wikipedia. Do have people you know check this out and give me feedback, as the more I know from real live editors and admins, the more I can make it worthwhile and usable. JeffRz (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend mentioning it at one of the Village pumps as you will likely get a lot of good feedback on the tool there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I understand it's impossible to change this article to Takeshima or Dokdo, but the title "Liancourt Rocks" is ridiculous. Does anyone have a problem with a dispute between Eastern nations defaulting to the Imperial British name? 210.103.36.58 (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would. Why would the British name take precedence, over, say, the American name, or the Australian name? For that matter, what is the British name of these rocks? I don't see any mention of any such name in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

North Korean claim for Dokdo in infobox

I don't think it is not needed to describe the North Korean claim of Dokdo. Actually it claims entire South Korea. Japan and South Korea are disputing on the island. I suggest to remove its claim. --Cheol (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

North Korea is a separate country, they have a separate claim on the island. It's no different than if China, Russia, or Barbados had a claim on the islands. The fact that North Korea disputes other places doesn't seem relevant to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We note the ROC claim on Tibet; it doesn't matter that their army has no physical way of getting there. Shii (tock) 05:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked a citation for North Korean claim. And it's contradictory that at the end of the article, it says 'North Korea supports South Korean claim'. Any idea to fix the contradiction? --Cheol (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"According to the KCNA, Dokdo island has been the sacred territory of North Korea since ancient times." http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2011-02/626698.html Shii (tock) 09:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both North and South Korea claim entire Korea to be their territory. NK supporting SK claim should be understood that they consider that Liancourt Rocks are part of Korea, not that they consider the islets are South Korean territory. --Kusunose 01:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, NK claims entire Korea including Dokdo. Do you think we need to describe the particular fact that is not only claim on islets in the infobox? --Cheol (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In infobox, it states NK claims these islets as a part of North Kyeongsang Province. Now, NK has not have Kyeongsang Province. It belongs to SK. Then we can say NK claims while it recognizes them as a part of current SK territory. --Cheol (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Man seriously...why are there so many trivial discussions here. It doesn't even matter...they're a bunch of rocks. Getting worked up over trivial things is lame. (Oh yea, we can't say that here can we, but just FYI.). - M0rphzone (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just keep it as before. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To describe a phenomenon 'Dokdo glory'

In early November and early February, at Ulleungdo you can see these islets and the sun in a straight line. That is called Dokdo glory. I think this is a beautiful scenery worth describing here. What do you think? --Cheol (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Reliable sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's a view from Ulleungdo and it's a tourists attraction of the island, add the information with RS in the Ulleungdo article. Not here. It has nothing to do with the geographical article of Liancourt Rocks. Oda Mari (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What does this trivial detail have to do with these rocks? Put it in the Ulleungdo article...as if it's even notable at all. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Visibility

Why is this relevant? Maybe on the dispute page but it seems out of place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.80.97 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. The only reason it's included seems to be that some agenda-pushing editors were fond of building their own home-made arguments about it, somehow along the implied idea that if you can see island X from country Y, that somehow strengthens country Y's claim to X. Interestingly, none of these agenda-pushing accounts ever bothered to spell out those arguments and their premises themselves (let alone source them); they were all merely busy writing diatribes about visibility as if something of enormous importance were hinging on it, without ever saying what it was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy taking out the whole paragraph; the only reason to keep it would be if a reliable source actually used this as an argument in favor of Korea's claim. While that would be an awfully specious argument, if it were reliable (not just a blog post), I suppose a sentence could remain, although perhaps it should be in a different section. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I implemented this change the other day, but it was reverted without any explanation and in breach of the special editing rules on this article today by Ryuch (talk · contribs) [11]. If I don't hear a good argument for this reinstatement of the "visibility" material, I intend to revert it again in a while. Looking at the footnotes: (1) footnote 13 is a dead link, and apparently went to an unreliable web site to begin with. (2) Footnotes 14+15 are from a publication that might be reliable as far as the raw facts are concerned, but we still have no reliably sourced information why and according to what criteria these raw facts would be in any way relevant for us; the text is still presenting them as if visibility was important for something, without saying why. (3) Footnotes 16+17 are entirely WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for further explanation, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I thought you violated the rule enforced at this page. You should ask consensus to delete a large amount of text. Now I hear your more concise arguments. I think those links were not fake and as time goes by links could be broken. Visibility is very frequent arguments in Korea, I think I can find the changed links. Please, be harmonious with me. --Cheol (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to hear more why you think visibility is not relevant to the natural condition of these islets. --Cheol (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion above, my edit was in fact based on previous consensus in talk, and besides, it was never a revert to begin with. And even if my edit had been a violation of the rule, that didn't justify you violating it in turn – in fact, from what you say now, I understand that you were aware of the rule and broke it knowingly. About the footnotes: nobody claimed the links were "fake". As I said, number 13 may well have been working a few years ago, but there is no indication it was ever a reliable source; footnotes 16+17 are not references at all but merely an editor's personal speculation. If you can find reliable sources making some sort of case about it, then of course we can include it somewhere, although I'd say it shouldn't go into that physical facts section, but directly into some "dispute/arguments"-related section. Because if it is true that any visibility-related argument is specifically a Korean argument, then the very fact that we are mentioning visibility in the geography section could easily be understood as implying that the premises of that Korean argument are valid, i.e. that visibility is in some way a relevant criterion for something – which is very far from obvious indeed.

I asked you to self-revert. Are you refusing to do that? Because if that's the case, I'd have to ask for the rule to be enforced against you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, still now I could not find the consensus you are mentioning. You said your opinion and Qwyrxian agreed upon a part. Can you call it a consensus which was happened for a day? I don't think the order of talk and revert is so strict rule. I fixed the very first broken link and talking to you. I can read the news article in Korean and it's obvious that visibility is reliable fact as I can see the picture and read the text. I don't agreed that's not had not been a reliable source. Right, visibility is a crucial argument for the disputes but observing is a scientific method. It is not only argument. It's same how far they are from Uleung and Oki. The references you said speculations are just summaries of the original sources. --Cheol (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Qwyrxian. I don't think the visibility is an important piece of information. Why should it be mentioned in the article as the islets are only visible on very clear days and not easily seen? And how many days the islets can be visible in a year? If it's only several days, it would be meaningless. Cheol, why do you think the information is needed? Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the visibility is an informative fact. As far as I know, you can see these islets for around 50 days. Korean geography books such as 『세종실록 지리지』,『고려사 지리지』, and 『신동국여지승람』 described the visibility. I am not arguing for claiming for the islets at this point. But the old encyclopediac geography books noted the fact, then why not Wikipedia? --Cheol (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

50 days? Citation, please. And are they visible without the aid of binoculars or a telescope? BTW, I don't think asking for opinion at WikiProject Korea only is not fair. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfair to ask opinions anywhere in Wikipedia and I will be thankful if you attract other good editors. In fact, I don't think asking at the WikiProject could bring only one-sided opinions. Blaming itself is not fair. At this article, you can find a book titled "Dokdo, you can see at Ulleungdo". In the book, you can see 3~4 times for a month at least. They surveyed 1 year and 6 months. --Cheol (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The linked page is a blog and it is not a reliable source. FYI, you are not on my watchlist, but WikiProject Korea has been. Oda Mari (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't recognize I mentioned a book not a blog? Did you notify to WikiProject Japan? Not? then why not? --Cheol (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a surprise to me to delete the text which was there since being added in September 2008 by this edit in a few days while still the discussion is not settled. I think the deletion is disruptive. --Cheol (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryuch, could you please explain why the information should be in the article? We do not include every random fact found in reliable sources. For example, we don't put things like "This city can be seen from this mountain 150 days a year" or "Building X is visible from the top of Building Y", even if it's sourced. I am also concerned that the book you mention may not meet WP:RS. Who published it, and who wrote it? If it's published by that museum in Ulleungdo, it certainly wouldn't meet WP:RS. If it's published by a branch of the Korean government or one of their psuedo-independent advocacy groups, then it would need to be clearly attributed to that group, and probably not put in the Geography section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree the number of the days of visibility is the only reason to describe. The islets are differ from ordinary buildings in a city. In the sea, the visibility is a significant geographical information. The new book is not the only source about the visibility. Hundreds year ago, geographical books such as 『세종실록 지리지』,『고려사 지리지』, and 『신동국여지승람』noted. The reason why those books noted the visibility is also a good reason to describe. I don't think they were written to push the propaganda. The new book is a study of the days of visibility which can be reproduced by any independent research. --Cheol (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, nobody denies the factual accuracy of the claim that they are visible. That's trivial. But you have again evaded the question: why would visibility matter? What does it matter for? Evidently, your eagerness to have this information included is not simply because it's an interesting little bit of geographical trivia. You, like all those earlier Korean editors here, want to include it because you somehow feel it's related to some argument. Because, to your mind, the visibility somehow strengthens the Korean claims to these islands. You said so above ("visibility is a crucial argument for the disputes"). The same seems to be true for those sources (newspaper articles, blogs etc) you were quoting. They all appear to be trumpeting out this fact with a triumphant tone, as if it was somehow of utmost importance for the arguments argument about national sovereignty.

So, can you now, please, please, do what none of the other edit-warriors could be bothered to do, and finally tell us what that argument is supposed to be?!? If some Koreans believe that visibility amounts to an argument in favour of Korean sovereignty, then why on earth do they think that? What on earth could that connection be? To every non-Korean editor here, this is just totally opaque. It's in fact a completely absurd idea, on the face of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, can I just echo what Future Perfect at Sunrise says? For example, Alaska is visible from many parts of Canada and Russia, but no one disputes that Alaska is a state of the United States. Similarly, the United Kingdom has British Overseas Territories scattered across the world, the jurisdiction of which are mostly uncontested. Could you provide some sort of English version encapsulated argument for what visibility has to do with sovereignty? I think that, if well-sourced, such an argument could certainly go on Liancourt Rocks dispute, but I am still concerned that, no matter what the argument is, it doesn't belong in the Geography section here. Again, we don't regularly describe geographic features by explaining where they are visible from (though I think we may do so sometimes for mountains, if I'm remembering correctly). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those citations are reliable and not original research. Great! Now, you are saying it's trivial and I am not. Now we can talk the significance of the visibility of an island which is not seen at any other lands. It is significant enough to be described in Wikipedia? --Cheol (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You have again evaded my question. Do you even understand my question? Please read it again. If the English is too difficult for you, please get somebody to translate it for you. (And by the way, I did not agree that any sources are reliable; but that's beside the point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are misleading other editors as if I am repeating same words. I answered already. Old geographical books noted the visibility because of its significance. What is your measure to judge triviality? --Cheol (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my question, and it is becoming very clear that you never understood it. Look, the English Wikipedia is very welcoming to people who are not native English speakers (I am not a native speaker either), and there are many things that people with an imperfect command of English can usefully do here, and their contributions are greatly appreciated. But negotiating the intricacies of NPOV and reliable sourcing on a difficult article like this is not one of those things. If your English is not sufficient to follow a discussion like this and make yourself adequately understood, you should perhaps consider leaving this debate to others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I found some visibility descriptions on Wikipedia, such as Kunashir Island, Farallon Islands, Rangitoto Island, and St Helena Island National Park. It is noted at the header of the articles. Let me know why you are prohibiting describing? --Cheol (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We can continue discussing this as soon as you answer my question that you have evaded up to now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess all those articles you list are saying the islands are clearly visible from the mainland. For example, Rangitoto Island is a landmark of Auckland - the word 'visible' is incidental. None of them list places that they are not visible from. From an informational point of view, it is good to know that an island may be visible from the mainland or a major so. Not so much so that one island is barely visible and often invisible from another island. As pointed out, I think the issue is one of relevance (my original post). Why is visibility important to this article? 203.196.80.97 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why is visibility important?"

It's not. It's not important at all. The visibility is a trivial detail that needs not be included for the sake of notability and conciseness. He is just too worked-up about the rocks to realize how lame these arguments are - especially if you have to pick and choose specific, trivial comparisons to further your argument. Get real man. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical Association of Korea-Japan Relations - publication details

I thank User:Oda Mari for better scholarship than mine, leading to reverting my 468066587 in 468274948. I have now supplied full details of the publication I referred to ("Dokdo is Korean Territory") including the address and other contact details of the Historical Association of Korea-Japan Relations. I can supply an image of the publication's cover if this would help.- Peter Ellis - Talk 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We never provide that type of information on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No one is questioning their existence. The problem is that we shouldn't put sources in the references section unless information from the source is actually included in the article. This would be done by adding info and putting an inline reference. See Help:Citations for more info; or if you want to add the info here, I'd be happy to deal with the technical formatting part. However, just from the name of that group and the article, it sounds unlikely to me that it will be a reliable source, given that it's clearly non-neutral. It could possibly be used as a source if the group is an important player in the Korean history/government/propaganda field, in which case it might be relevant to cite their opinion (but not any "facts" that they have to offer, probably). I guess what I'm saying is that we need to know more about what from that article you want to cite, and what would be added to this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is the en translation of the linked page, isn't it? [12] I cannot find "Dokdo is Korean Territory" on the page or its link. Where can I find "Dokdo is Korean Territory"? And why do you keep adding the link to the ref. section as it's not used as a source in the article body? Your addition does not follow MoS. If it's available on the web, it should be added to the EL section and if not, you should create the further reading section and add "Dokdo is Korean Territory" to it. I don't understand your addition. Please explain. Additionally, as Qwyrxian pointed out above, the title looks like NNPOV. If it's a propaganda, it should not be include on this page. Please explain. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I getting the impression that there are nationalistic overtones at play, here? Are both of you offering a 'Japanese' perspective? I picked up the booklet "Dokdo is Korean Territory" several days ago in a 'neutral' venue, in Australia. I read it, seeing that there was definite 'sided-ness' in its publication source (supposedly Korean); yet, the booklet has pictures of what appear to be "primary sources" and offers a cogent and connected logic in its geographical and historical narrative. I suppose the better place to weigh in on this would have been the article Liancourt Rocks dispute. Maybe the folk who watch that will be amenable to hearing of/from this reference.- Peter Ellis - Talk 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:RS. Let me draw a parallel: Culture Warrior, by Bill O'Reilly is an extremely slanted book. It's not reliable for any fact about American politics, American culture, or, well, anything. It is, however, a reliable source for O'Reilly's beliefs. O'Reilly is a notable political commentator in the U.S., so if, in an article, we wanted to present his opinions, we could do so, and we could cite them to Culture Warrior. We could not, on the other hand, cite it for anything factual. The same thing is (probably) true for the book you're talking about--we can probably cite it for the society's positions...we might, possibly, be able to cite it for some facts, but it would depend on exactly what they are. But the book is very unlikely to be a reliable source in general.

But none of this changes the more fundamental fact: we never, ever, ever list books in the "references" section unless they actually, you know, provide a reference for something in the article. What points in the article are verified by the book you are recommending? As I said, if you want to recommend an addition to the article, okay, but you can't just add a reference that isn't, well, referenced. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Pollution and environmental destruction

Under the section "Pollution and environmental destruction," is the pollution ongoing process? If not, I think we should change the tense of the paragraph from the present tense to the past like changing "is" to "was" because that section could be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.87.207 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

There are some wrong facts

Nononoass (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits, if you want to edit it yourself you need to wait til you're autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Tok Islets

A search for a reliable source for "Tok Islets" (recently added to the article with no citation) returned this:

• 张茜, ed. (9 February 2012). "DPRK accuses Japan of 'ambition to grab Tok Islets'". people's Daily online.

-- PBS (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewording the intro?

This is going nowhere, with people assuming bad faith and making attacks on proposed changes that don't change anything.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What do all of you think about this rewording of the intro? I just heard of these rocks for the first time a few minutes ago, so I'm not at all partial in the dispute. It seems rather awkward to introduce the controversy in the first sentence by giving two names for the sea instead of providing a description of the location to which everyone (presumably) would agree. Note one error; I meant to write "between Japan and South Korea" (note that I'm trying to keep them in the same order as before, per the note at the top of this talk page) instead of "between Japan and Korea". Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Your revision of the opening statement doesn't appear to introduce pertinent information that would warrant such alterations. The location/name of the Sea identified in the main article is consistent with the identity methods indicative of the International_Hydrographic_Organization, not to mention many of the prominent world map producers and media respectively uses Sea of Japan (East Sea) concurrently (See:Google Maps/Google Earth). The only change that seems apparent in your intro is the switching around order preferences of the two countries listed; (putting Korea before Japan in your opening sentence), whereas the main article lists Japan before Korea. It begs the question of the true motives for such an action from someone claiming to be impartial.Keviexw (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC) In fact, Wikipedia has a policy on naming the Sea, which is found at Wikipedia:NC-SoJ. In this case, this counts as a Japan/Korea article, and as such, we have to use the phrase "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" for the first instance, and Sea of Japan for all of the rest in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC) April 26, 2012, IHO General Assembly decided to maintain the single designation of "Sea of ​​Japan". And, August 6, 2012, No. 10 to return even the Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names was rejected the North and South Korea claim that writing side by side of "East sea".Wingwrong (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I know. And 100% irrelevant. The decision was made by consensus. If you want to change that consensus, you'll need to do so elsewhere, not on this article. Personally, I'd prefer that you don't waste everyone's time, though, because there's no way you'll get a change through, either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Keviexw, what do you mean? I found a paragraph that uses "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and refers to them being "disputed between Japan and South Korea", and I turned it into a paragraph that refers to them being "located between Japan and [South] Korea" and speaks of them as being in the body of water that the two countries call "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" respectively. I never edited the first sentence, and everywhere else I kept things in the same order as I found them. Given their delicate political state, of course we need to mention the controversy, but the physical location of the islands is more important than the dispute. Remember that guidelines are guidelines, not laws that we must follow 100% of the time; as long as we state both names and associate each one with its respective disputant, we're still following WP:NPOV and the spirit of the guideline. By speaking of the body of water as "what each one calls it", we're making it more neutral; Koreans agree that Japan calls it the Sea of Japan, and Japanese agree that Koreans call it the East Sea, so aside from the inevitable choice of mentioning one country before the other (and my proposal follows WP:NC-SoJ, even though I've never noticed it before), we're saying absolutely nothing about which name we prefer. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Nyttend, because that's not what policy says that Wikipedia calls it. In this article, we must, per that guideline, call it "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" first, then "Sea of Japan" every time thereafter. This article and similar ones are exactly the reason for those guidelines. WP:IAR is outdated and envocable only when you know you have broad community agreement, and that is very much not the case here, given the nationalist sentiments involved. Any change in the very delicate detente brought about by WP:NC-SoJ is a bad bad thing, practically guaranteed to lead us down a rabbit hole of pain and unpleasantness. And finally, there is one mistake in what you wrote, a mistake of omission (which I'm assuming you didn't know): Koreans call it East Sea (in Korean), Japanese call it Sea of Japan (in Korean), and basically every other English speaking government and international body calls it Sea of Japan when writing in English. A small number of mapmakers call it both for economic reasons; rather than fight it tooth and nail down the line, the compromise was that on a very small number of articles (those related specifically to Korea or to Korea/Japan), we allowed the alternate name to appear, once. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You're right: I didn't know that. I figured that the Korean-language name for the body of water translates to "East Sea" and that the Japanese-language name translates to "Sea of Japan" and that the English-language issue was that partisans of both sides use the English version of their own language's name. Let me remind you, however, that IAR is not outdated, because blind adherence to guidelines or other policies is disruptive. Referring to an entity by speaking of different parties' names for it is a valid procedure; if you speak of Londonderry as <a city in northwestern Northern Ireland that royalists call "Londonderry" and republicans call "Derry">, you're adhering to NPOV and everything else. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Nyttend: The point I was making is that the naming of this body of water has already been established by several factors. The IHO standards which is recognized by the United Nations as the competent authority regarding nautical charting and specifications recognizes Sea of Japan(East Sea) within its international naming convention systems. This is undisputed. Reiterating Qwyrxian statement which recognizes Wikipedia’s policy on naming the Sea, found at Wikipedia:NC-SoJ in-which we are required to use Sea of Japan (East Sea) in the first instance. This is what Wikipedia calls it. In this article, we must, per that guideline, call it "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" first, then "Sea of Japan" every time thereafter. This article and similar ones are exactly the reason for those guidelines. This is undisputed. Leading international Cartographers’ and Media alike recognizes Sea of Japan (East Sea) respectively. This is undisputed. It doesn't make sense to draw reference to “the body of water” when Wikipedia’s Policy has already established the naming of the Sea which signifies direct correlation to the IHO standards in naming the Sea. Also, referencing “the body of water” just appears to inadvertently showcase such a dispute (why are we initially referring to this area as “A body of water?” It must be because the naming is disputed among Japan and Korea). Regardless if the naming of the Sea is disputed by Korea and Japan it’s undisputed by prominent and well-established international factors. The opening statement in this article stays as it is .Keviexw (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC) You didn't say any of that the first time. Contrary to your accusations, I was not attempting to fight for either side — I was trying to make the dispute wait until the reader got a basic idea of where the islands were located. I don't care right now what IHO says, because that's a matter for changing the contents of the article: I was simply trying to rearrange what's already in the article to make it simpler for non-ideologues to understand. And I understand now the factual issue with the name, so I'm not now suggesting that we adopt my changes. Please note that this sort of guideline (which is not policy!) is relevant when we refer to the subject in our own text, rather than saying "Party A calls it __ and Party B calls it __". It is indeed marvellous that with your second and third edits you jump into a dispute, assuming bad faith on my part. Exchanges like this are a good reason why I generally don't do anything with disputed articles, because someone's always bound to think I did something that I didn't do (again, despite what you said, I never used "body of water"), and then to begin attacking me on that basis. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverts made

The reverts I've made to this article have been based on the fact that after reading the sources given, none of the sources state that South Korea administers the island, only that their coast guard and 2 people occupy it. Clover345 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are reading far too much into the term "administer". What do you believe that term means? It means that a state practically exerts its power on a territory and on the people there. I don't see how it could possibly be contentious to state the obvious fact that Korea does this, while Japan doesn't. It doesn't matter whether a specific source explicitly uses the word "administer" to describe this state of affairs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming order lameness

About the ordering of the Korean and Japanese name versions in the lead sentence: while everybody should remember the point about "naming lameness" in the "rules of engagement" at the top of the page, I think it's worth pointing out that the order with the Korean version first was in fact the long-standing stable version, until (as far as I can see) this [13] very recent edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

the very earliest revision of this article (check the edit history) had the Japanese name first. And then it was changed around several times. Any user can argue in a hundred different ways about this but in the end, they are all just naming order lameness arguments. Clover345 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of it was my fault for misreading the edits (I thought that somehow the edits were putting only Dokdo into the lead sentence, with Takeshima in a later sentence); I shouldn't have been reverting when I did. I honestly don't care at all what order the names are in. And we can't even say "use alphabetical for neutrality", because then you could say "Japan is before Korea, so Japan first," or "Dokdo is before Takeshima, so Takeshima first". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that this despite any discussion, the names will continue to be changed around. I don't think this discussion will go anywhere. I would suggest archiving. 176.250.252.78 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Dokdo Island, is claimed by South Korea. South Korea territory. Japan does claim Dokdo territory. Dokdo Island is Korean territory not Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbostonasia101 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly expressing the current state of facts: both sides claim the Liancourt Rocks as their territory, though it is currently occupied by South Korea. Wikipedia's job is to report what reliable sources say, addressing both sides in the case of a dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dokdo is Korean territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiesusa (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOR All Japanese understand the Korean claim. So Korean appear in court to the International Court of Justice quickly.Wingwrong (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the entries in Wikipedia and the entry name has some inconsistency. Look at Senkaku islands and Kuril islands, thier wikipeida entries are named after one's claimed name but this entry is based on a random name after a random ship that does not have any historic importance nor related to the islet itself. It sounds like I can wreck my boat into a random islet that does not have official name yet and claim it now has a name after whatever that I think approporiate for a boat. Also two major parties interested in that islet do not and never call it that way at all. There are no maps in my knowledge that stats this islet as listed in wikipedia. I am not saying it should be changed but rather there need to be a convention for this kind of things. --216.254.155.194 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Info box

Should the claimed by section in the infobox should include both countries as it is claimed by both, as with other disputed territory articles? Opinions? Clover345 (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant with the "administered by" section just above? Personally, I see no value in repeating the country info in both sections. Practice in other articles is divided: Greater and Lesser Tunbs has one country under "administered" and only the second country under "claimed"; Swains Island has one country under "administered" and repeats it again under "claimed". I don't think there's ever been a formal consensus procedure on what the preferred usage should be, and the template documentation doesn't talk about the "claimed by" fields at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This was changed yesterday without consensus by FPS.[14] Other articles of disputed islands in Asia such as Senkaku Islands, Paracel Islands, Iturup, Kunashir Island, Shikotan, Habomai Islands, Scarborough Shoal, Taiping Island and so on list both countries in claimed by section. So South Korea should be included in that section. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it, pending further discussion. But is there any actual reason we should have it, other than the fact that some other articles are doing it this way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in the case of disputed territories, the infobox should list all claimants. Administration IMO is another matter in these cases. Although very difficult as editors of these articles are likely to have some bias, wikipedia should try to present both sides of the dispute without bias and I think presenting all claimants in the infobox is a good way to do this. Clover345 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk about Liancourt Rocks Dispute History.

Qwyrxian, Hello. Thanks for your message. I know the South Korea claimed their sovereignty over the islets according to some old documents which they claimed written several hundred years ago. But, like you said, Japanese government did not do it, so I changed the edit. Thanks for your point-out. Wfumie (talk) 18 August 2012

Could you please explain on Talk:Liancourt Rocks why you reverted my edit? Your version focuses too much on a single point (the ICJ), and claims without evidence that both country's claims go back hundreds of years. Your version doesn't adequately summarize the Liancourt Rocks dispute article, which is what that section would do. If I don't here from you in a few days, I'll put back in my revised version, because yours definitely seems wrong to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Many footnotes are out of date or lead to unofficial sources

I've noticed a number of the footnotes and sources for this article point to websites that are no longer published. 13 (no longer point s to cited article), 15,1 6, 21 (points to no particular article).

Also is there a Wikipedia stance on what constitutes appropriate citations? Do editorial pages/sites count? If not there are a number of other citations that will need to be addressed.

72.95.199.235 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Editorial pages are not reliable sources in most circumstances, nor are most self-published websites, advocacy sites (except when specifically stating the advocacy group's opinion), etc. WP:RS is the guideline laying out our rules on what is or is not reliable. Not being accessible online anymore, though, isn't strictly a problem. Usually, we mark those as deadlinks (there's a template); sometimes old version can be found in archives, like the Wayback Machine. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The part that says, "South Korea has occupied the area without any legal consent from either the Japanese government..." assumes that the islands belong to Japan and therefore is not a neutral statement.

Thanks. August 23, 2012

Two things: 1. It is now 2012. We may want to update the current fees that the ferries charge, with the appropriate exchange rate as well. 2. South Korea "have"? If someone could correct this to "has", that would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.37.186 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 July 2012‎

There are so many things that I want you to edit here. There never was a dispute on Dokdo. It was Japan who made it look like that there is a dispute on Dokdo so they can at least have a chance to claim the territory of Dokdo. There are so many evidence that shows that Dokdo has always been Korean territory.

overlong argumentative material collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Japan first tried to add Dokdo to their territory in 1905 as part of Shimane Prefecture as name Takeshima. However, Dokdo has been recorded in Korean history as Korean territory so much earlier than Japan.It was the year 512, when Dokdo was first recorded as Korean territory (Dokdo was part of Woo-san-gook's territory at that time and Woo-san-gook was conquered by Silla, one of three Kingdoms of Korea). Later on, Dokdo has been officially acknowleged and recorded as Korean territory so many times. For example, in 1900, Korean Empire firmly established dominium of Dokdo by <Korean Empire Imperial Order Number 41>. Also, when Japan, first claimed Dokdo was their island, they said that "Takesima" (Dokdo's Japanese's name) was "Terra nullius" which means "land belonging to no one". However, as mentioned, above and as going to be mentioned belowe, there are so many evidences that show that Dokdo has been Korean territory for a long time and the oldest record that can be found shows that Dokdo has been Korean territory since the year 512. So many official documents and old maps of Joseon Dynasty show that Dokdo has been Korean territory from ancient times. Official documents such as Samguk Sagi, Sejong Chronicles, Sukjong Chronicles, Man'gi yoram(Handbook of State Affairs, 1808) and so many others have records of Dokdo as Korean territory. And among those, Sukjong Chronicles and Man'gi yoram(Handbook of State Affairs, 1808) even recorded exact location of Dokdo. Ulleungdo and Dokdo was part of Gangwon Province since Joseon Dynasty.Japan claims that all those official documents and old maps of Joseon Dynasty does not prove prove anything about Dokdo's territory. Japan claims that Woo-san-do was the name of Ulleungdo instead of Dokdo and Korea did not know existence of Dokdo at that time. Ulleungdo and Dokdo did not have differnt name and most people of Joseon Dynasty did not know the exact location of Dokdo untill the late 17th centuries for sure. However, They knew the existence of Dokdo for sure because Sejong Chronicles says that "when the weather was clear it was able to face the island from the island". It is impossible to face one place when you are already at that place. Ulleungdo and Dokdo just had the same name and considered as one place, but people of Joseon clearly knew the existence of Dokdo. Later on, Ulleungdo gained today's name and Dokdo was the one which used the remaining name Woo-san-do. And because the name of Woo-san-do came from "Woo-san-gook", a country which was conquered by silla in the year 512 (consist of today's Ulleungdo and Dokdo), most people of Joseon, usually who did not lived in Ulleungdo, thought that the main and larger island was Woo-san-do. Because of it, untill the end of 17th century, most people drew maps with Dokdo bigger than Ulleungdo and \ closer to Korean pennisula. After 17th century, maps became accurate. Therefore people of Joseon Dynasty knew the existence of Dokdo and Dokdo has been Korean territory for a long time. (Dokdo later gained its current name from Korean Doll, meaning "rock", and do, meaning "island".) Back in the history, in 1877, government of Japan itself (Meiji), officially announced that Dokdo is Korean territory. According to Cairo Declaration which was announced in 1943, "Japan should be expelled from all other territories which she had taken by violence and greed." Therefore, Dokdo has been automatically returned to Korea after the long hurtful history when Korea became independent in 1945. In 1946, according to SCAPIN NO.677(Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers Instruction 677), when dividing the border of Korea and Japan, Ulleungdo, Dokdo and Jeju Province must be excluded from Japan's territory. (http://www.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Korea/Dokto_Island/History/Shin_Yong-ha_8.html) On June 22nd, 1946, SCAPIN NO.1033 ban all Japanese vassels from approaching more than 12 nautical miles away from Dokdo, setting the McArthur Line. OnAugust 15th, 1948, Korea become independent and establish their own government. With Korean Peninsula, sovereignity of Dokdo was transfered legitimaly from the U.S.A. government to Korean government. Later on, on December 12th, United Nations approved and acknowleged Korea as independent country. Dokdo has always been considered as attached island of Ulleungdo (Ulleungdo is an island too.) from the long Korean history. Dokdo is in sight distance (is visible in naked eyes) from Ulleungdo and it cannot be separated from Ulleungdo's dominium. Japan claims that Dokdo is their territory because of San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (a). San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (a) is this. "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the island of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet". Japan claims that Dokdo is Japanese territory because the treaty does not mention the Dokdo in the list of three island. However, There are 3358 islands in Korea and only three of them has been mentioned in the treaty. If Dokdo is not Korean territory just like how Japan is insiting, remaining 3355 islands in Korea shouldn't be Korean islands as well, but Japan is only claiming for Dokdo's dominium.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg319 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's all interesting, and a large portion of it can already be found at Liancourt Rocks disputes, but anything you want to be add needs to be verified by reliable sources. Please note, also, that primary sources aren't helpful (like the SF Peace Treaty, or the ancient Korean histories) because the meaning of these things are disagreed upon. That's why Wikipedia relies primarily on reliable secondary sources; ideally, we want independent sources (i.e., university presses, international scholarly journals, etc., that have no connection to either Korea or Japan), but we can cite J & K sources, so long as we make it clear when we do so that we're showing one of the biased sides. In any event, no matter what you've written above, there is no question that Wikipedia is going to present both sides of the story; our job here (and in all articles) is not to decide the Truth, but merely to report on what is being said about disputes in the real world. But, if you want to help us add reliably sourced info, you're welcome to do so; if it has anything to do with the ownership of the rocks, it needs to go at the other article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Confused

Diaoyu Island controlled by Japan and called Shenkashu Islands on Wikipedia. Dokdo contolled by Korea but called "Liancourt Rocks" on Wikipedia. I'm confused. ibicdlcod (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What country the island is controlled by is not the criterion we go by. Our principal criterion is what is the most common usage in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

pro-Japanese slant in Role in Japanese–Korean relations

I'm new to this whole thing, but i think this is how i do this. I just decided to read about the Liancourt Rocks while looking at 2012 Olympic scandals, but this whole section seems pretty pro-Japan. Not a single extreme case or protest from Japan is listed, while a whole paragraph lists a number of extreme protests from Korea. It just does not really seem neutral, at all. A quick google search shows that there are a number of "notable" Japanese protests/offenses that could be mentioned as well, or the extra bit about Korean protests should be removed.

TheWhiteSpark (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples? Shii (tock) 07:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A Japanese man threw a brick through the Korean Embassy at Hiroshima in response to the Korean President's visit to the islands. http://www.japannews24.net/2012/08/13/japanese-man-throws-brick-at-south-korean-consulate-in-hiroshima/

Another notable protest would be the Japanese man who video-taped himself tying a stake to the statue dedicated to the comfort women of WWII, which said that Takeshima was Japanese territory. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/548370.html

I think protests from either side are not really relevant to the rocks themselves, and all protests should be moved to the Liancourt Rocks Dispute page, if worthy of mention at all. TheWhiteSpark (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing article's name

Hello,

I have noticed that there is a double standard for the naming of articles concerning island disputes that Japan is currently engaged in with its neighbors. For the Senkakus (Diaoyutai) and the Kuril Islands (Northern Territories), the name of the article is the one that the controlling state uses to call the disputed territory in question - so "Kuril Islands" is the title of that article because they are controlled by Russia, but "Senkaku Islands" is the title because those islets are controlled by Japan.

"Liancourt Rocks" is not a title used by either Korea or Japan, nor has it found widespread acceptance in international news media. I propose that the article title be changed to "Dokdo," because the islets are currently under control by South Korea and that is the name used in that country, as well as to use a consistent standard in the naming of articles on territorial disputes. The Japanese name should be listed in the article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.jun.lee (talk • contribs)

As explained two sections further up, the issue of which state controls the territory is not the criterion we go by, so the claim of "double standards" is baseless. If you wish to make a case that "Liancourt Rocks" is not widely used in English, that would require some careful documentation of English usage, and then a formal renaming proposal. There have of course been numerous such discussions and proposals before, but the last formal one seems to have been several years ago, so if somebody were to make a reasoned case for a reappraisal of consensus, a new procedure could perhaps be attempted at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Pollution

How can a fisherman and his wife dump 8 tonnes of sludge into the ocean every day...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.6.180 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of wondering about this myself. They must have an interesting diet. Thepm (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited articles say 8 tonnes of orange colored wastewater are being dumped from Korean Dokdo guards' and lighthouse workers facilities everyday.75.176.43.255 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently, there are 37 navy patrolmen on the islands with the two inhabitants. (Jinosong (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

Newly Discovered Evidence

In August 28th, new evidence on the territorial dispute has emerged. A host of Japanese textbooks citing the Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory have been discovered. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2012/08/28/5/0301000000AEN20120828008500315F.HTML (Jinosong (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

Well, first, that info would go into Liancourt Rocks dispute, not here. But I wonder--is that a reliable source? It's clearly pushing KPOV, but that's okay as long as we attribute it. IN any event, please take this discussion over there. When you do so, please note that new topics go at the bottom of talk pages, not mixed in the middle (otherwise they sometimes get overlooked. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a rather silly canard, unlikely to have any lasting influence on the debate. Unless the Korean government were to make it officially part of its argumentation, but they'd be fools if they did, seeing as it is rather obviously bogus. If the map pictured at the press release at [15] is anything to go by. The border there is quite obviously not intended to be a border between Japanese and Korean islands, but an internal boundary between different parts of Japan. And all the other maps involved, according to the text, simply didn't mention L.R. at all, as opposed to describing them as Korean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So what is each side's claim based on?

The section on the ROK-Japan dispute is why the overwhelming number of people come to this article, I would guess, and not for information on vegetation or sludge dumped into the sea.

But there is almost nothing here on the basis for the claims of the two governments about ownership. Surely something has been published by the two governments to argue their cases that can be used to beef up this article. Tito john (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we have a wholly separate article, Liancourt Rocks dispute, which handles that issue. We need to keep them separate to keep this article from being overwhelmed. I think this was decided quite a number of years ago; I would be opposed to any merging back here, but you're welcome to try to gain consensus for it. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I moved the page because the "dispute" article is really difficult to understand and threatens to remain low quality forever, whereas a high quality article on the rocks themselves is at least feasible. Shii (tock) 13:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And there are quite a number of other articles where this is the case, where we have an article on a geographical or political place, but put the dispute into a separate article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I had to protect this article two days ago because there was renewed edit-warring, with violations of the "rules of engagement" for this page from all sides, and no discussion. Now the two days of protection have passed, and there has still not been any discussion on talk. I consider it rather self-evident that there are things to be said for and against both versions that were being edit-warred about, so I very strongly advise all parties concerned to come here and discuss before making any further reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know I'm biased here, but what I saw was DanCKor edit warring to remove sourced information he didn't like based on a claim that it "wasn't objective", without ever specifying what exactly was wrong. I'm willing to discuss it, and I apologize for not taking the first step, but it's now up to DanCKor to justify the removal of longstanding information and phrasing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed to DanCKor [16].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're talking mainly about this paragraph, right?

Since the South Korean president, Syngman Rhee, deployed the South Korean Coast Guard to the islets in January 1952, South Korea has occupied the area without any legal consent from either the Japanese government or the United Nations. In 1991, the South Korean government sent two South Korean citizens to the Liancourt Rocks, an octopus fisherman and his wife, to be permanent residents on the islets. A small South Korean national police detachment, administrative personnel, and lighthouse staff are assigned to the islets.Life in Dokdo

Since this whole set of disputes has often involved editors with an imperfect command of English, who find it difficult to adequately express their views on talk pages, I hope people will accept it if I take a step away from the normal detached admin position and try to voice some of these concerns for them. First, the phrasing of "without any legal consent" comes across as tendentious, because it insinuates such a consent would have been required (which is plainly false, especially in the case of the United Nations, which is not in the business of handing out declarations of consent to states dealing with their claimed territories.) Second, the cited source does not actually support the claim that the Korean government "sent" those inhabitants to the island, a claim that also may be understood as insinuating that this inhabitation is somehow artificial, non-genuine, thus undermining the Korean position.

By the way, this paragraph was also not "long-standing"; it was only added by Wfumie (talk · contribs) in August [17]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies on thinking this was longstanding, and forgetting that it was added by someone who ended up blocked for POV pushing. Perhaps the easier thing for now is to keep it out, until we can find a clearer source. I really think I read somewhere else that said that the fisherfolk were sent (or volunteered as a sort of patriotic duty), but we'll need a source for that. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FPS, although I have a reliable source to support the South Korea unilateraily declared the sovereignty over the Liancourt Rock against the U.S. decision. However the description is in the lead and this article is about geographic feature of the islands, The description is not needed in this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Role in Japanese-Korean relations

I think the entire section should be removed, retaining only a link to Liancourt Rocks dispute and a short (3-4 sentence) summary of that article. This article should be solely about the islands, what is or isn't physically there, etc. We should keep all of the political issues over on the dispute article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is how the article looked several months ago. Only recently has it been infected with currentism. Shii (tock) 06:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please include the incident - where 44 year old unemployed Japanese man angered by the Korean president's visit to Dokdo threw a brick through the glass door of the South Korean consulate in Hiroshima.-Plans are useless but planning is indispensable- (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. It's trivial, and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. It certainly doesn't belong here, and probably not at the disputes article either. We don't include every mention of every protest and anti-Japanese attacks that happens in Korea every time they get upset at some remark by Japanese politicians either (or, at least, we shouldn't). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but there are no examples of Japanese protests/extreme violence, at all. This section is biased, in my opinion, and some examples from Japan would be well placed. TheWhiteSpark (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree... Qwyrxian seems to be a VERY biased contributor, definitely pro-Japan. by your logic, why would you include Korean protest in detail ?

-Plans are useless but planning is indispensable- (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The WhiteSpark, that's probably because there have been only tiny protests and, well, no violence at all. Just because Korean nationals engage in violent protests doesn't necessarily mean that Japanese due. In any event, could we please get back to the more relevant topic, which is whether or not we can remove the whole section? Then we can debate on Liancourt Rocks dispute what to include there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I support moving the whole section to the Liancourt Rocks Dispute, that seems reasonable. I do think the dispute is the only reason these Islands are known, so it should be mentioned prominently that there is a dispute. Secondly, there have been violent protests by Japan, one of which you kindly said was trivial and not worth mentioning because it is news or something. If that is the case, than all the Korean protests should fall under similar guidelines and be removed for being "trivial" news. Both my thoughts are served by moving this section to Liancourt Rocks Dispute. TheWhiteSpark (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I agree that there are no examples of Japanese protests and thus makes this page quite biased. Throwing a rock at Korean consulate, for example, is not only a violent protest, but also, you cannot say it's a "tiny" protest. If you feel that Korean protests are much more frequent and more violent, cite a good source for that. Otherwise, it's always good to present both sides to make is as less biased as possible. And I must say this is a relevant discussion, because the way this was written makes the whole excerpt look biased, and that's a serious problem in a wiki page. In addition, "without legal consent from Japan and United Nations" assumes that Korea needed a legal consent from Japan or United Nations. It should be written as something along the line of... "...South Korea has occupied the area. Japan feels that there should have been a legal consent from either Japanese government or the United Nations, while Korea maintains that the area has been Korean territory since the past that their occupation does not require their consent." If you can see how you wrote this particular sentence is biased, that's great. binsbts (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the descriptions which should be described in Liancourt Rocks dispute. If any objection, please discuss here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bdell555, if you object my edit, please edit this section to what you claimed about two paragraphs without restoring the whole descriptions. Your edit do not improve this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably it was my bad. Because I mentioned the similar two sections in the bottom section on this page. Sorry everyone. Oda Mari (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012

I visited your website and searched for Dokdo to find something very annoying. To begin with, the page redirected to Liancourt Rocks. I quite understand that you want to stay as neutral as possible, but it is an obvious fact that the two islets are called Dokdo, not Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks. Dokdo is simply Korea's and not a controversial place! Therefore, I want you to change the main title to Dokdo, instead of other wrong names. Also, this passage implies that Korea has illegally taken Dokdo by force. Take a look at this sentence: "South Korea has occupied the area without any legal consent from either the Japanese government or the United Nations." This is totally false and to be honest, unforgivable. After World War II, Japan(who lost the war) should have set their colonies(like Korea) free. Dokdo is included in the Kairo Declaration which guaranteed freedom of all Korean territory. This means that there was a legal consent about Dokdo between Korea and the world! Thus, the sentence should be eliminated or changed into something like "Korea took over Dokdo with legal consent in 1952." These were the two things I have wanted. Just two... THANKS FOR READING AND I WISH YOU WOULD MAKE A JUST DECISION. P.S.: This is absolutely not a joke but a real political message that wants change. I hope to see the false information changed in a couple of days... DanCKor (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The neutral English name, as established in multiple discussions, is "Liancourt Rocks". The ownership is not "obvious", and there is indeed controversy: see for example Liancourt Rocks dispute where your interpretation of the Cairo Declaration is disputed. You have failed to provide historically reliable sources to support your proposed change to say that South Korea's occupation is "legal", and even if you did find such sources, there are other sources which say the opposite. Wikipedia documents all points of view, including the non-Korean point of view. Shrigley (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Liancourt Rocks" strikes me a bit contrived though and we should use "the islands" / "the area" / "the territory" more in the body of the article instead of continually referring to "Liancourt Rocks" all the time. Just because it is agreed that the title should be "Liancourt Rocks" that doesn't mean we should be using that term throughout.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Image and two sections

I remove a protest image recently added and noticed the section "Role in Japanese–Korean relations" and "Dispute" deal with the same issue. I think they should be merged and trimmed. I also think the recent events in the "Role in Japanese–Korean relations" section should be moved to the dispute article as this is a geography article. Oda Mari (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Governance issues are not necessarily off-topic here anymore than a "Politics" or "Government" section would be off-topic in the article on Japan. Japan is not necessarily a "geography article" and neither is this one. "Taiwan" used to be a geography article when the primary article for the political state was "Republic of China" but we don't have an analogous situation here (where one article is geography and one is non-geography). The dispute article is an expansion or spin-out of this article; it if a sub-article concentrating on an aspect of this article in more depth.

This means that the dispute should be summarized here, as opposed to not discussing it at all. One paragraph on the background/history and perhaps a sentence each for each side's perspective should be given. It is not enough to just say that Japan has tried to take the matter to the ICJ. This meant be more meaningful if Japan were not itself adamant about having the dispute over the Senkakus taken to the ICJ.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012

About [3], "The Franco-English name of the islets derives from Le Liancout, the name of a France whiling ship which came close to being wrecked on the rocks in 1849", I'm requst to add that I say. "Western ship as Dokdo initially found one 1849 French whaler Liang-Cours favor named after paste As known in Europe the name as, before Japan's Takeshima (竹 岛) the notation to in between Japan and South Korea neutral term used to excuse to the internationalterm is spread in society.

This would dilute the intent of France, a collection of rocks found at the time of the Dokdo islets people living and non-residents to engage in life island (island) (岩, rocks) was claimed by South Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo claim nested."(From: Naver Knowledge encyclopedia) 소설 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I can't add that, because it appears to be a machine translation of something else. First, that may constitute a copyright violation if it's not your own words; second, and more importantly, it doesn't make sense. Sometimes I can guess at the intent behind a machine translation, but not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013

Hello my name is Steven J Barber and I'd like to request my website as an external source of important data related to the Liancourt Rocks article. In the past, we were linked to the Dokdo Island article. Currently we are referenced under the Korean version of "Dokdo" page. http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%8F%85%EB%8F%84

Our url is http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/

We are affiliated with Korea's North Gyeonsan Province's Dokdo website because our data is considered reputable. See our banner at this page

http://en.dokdo.go.kr/index.do

We are also cited by Yeongnam University's Dokdo Research Center in Daegu Korea. Note the "English" banner links to us.

http://dokdo.yu.ac.kr/

BTW this is me...

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/261_86292.html Ulleungdont (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Due to the article probation discussed in the banner at the top of this page I'm not inclined to add any more ELs to this article without consensus, especially where the request to add the EL comes from someone affiliated with the external site. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, perhaps this article could use some useful data for example images. Do you have any suggetions? We have tons of related material that could enhance this page. I'll work on submitting some of these in the near future. What do you think?

Steven J Barber webmaster www.dokdo-takeshima.com Ulleungdont (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

Permission to have important images added to this page. I have many high detailed pictures of Liancourt Rocks that would enhance this page. This were taken in areas not usually accessible to the general public. I have all copyright permission as I took them during my trips to the rocks. Any ideas or suggestions ?Ulleungdont (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding new images should be no problem; they will be very welcome. Just upload what you have (preferably on Commons, provided they are yours to release under a free license), and then let's see where to put them. Also, your account is now "confirmed", so you will be able to edit the page directly yourself even while it is semi-protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note, though, that we don't want to overload the article with images; given it's current length, I would imagine that we don't want any more than 2 or 3 more. And just to put it out there right away, I personally always oppose the use of galleries in articles; they're not forbidden, but discouraged per WP:IG. However, if the images are free, then uploading a larger number to commons is good, and then we can pick and choose those most suited to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

Possible images for Liancourt Rocks page flagged for copyright!?? Why?

I uploaded numerous images from my website for addition to the Liancourt Rocks page but the wiki-gods smite them down for copyright vioation. Seriously what's the problem?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-East-Isle.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-ROK-Flag.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-East-Isle-2.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-Tourists.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-Watchtower-2.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-West-Isle.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dokdo-Facilities.jpg

They're my pics, great quality and I have a few more but some were already deleted! Can anyone help?

Ulleungdont (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that your website says that everything on it is copyrighted. So, for them to appear here, you have to release the pictures under a CC-BY-SA license (meaning anyone can copy them, re-use them, alter them, and even sell them). The easiest way is if you change the license on your web page (you could do it for just the pictures, retaining copyright on the text); alternatively, you can do it through the WP:OTRS system. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request/suggestion

In the construction section of the article, it notes that a staircase has been built on one of the islands. The presence of a staircase seems like a very minor thing to mention in the article, and since it is unreferenced (unlike the rest of the sentence), I'd suggest that it be removed. 150.203.114.145 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

Copyright Permission Granted for Liancourt Rocks Images.

I submitted these great images of Liancourt Rocks to wiki commons as the fine moderators here suggested and they're good to go. Here they are as follows.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The next time I go to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) I'll try and get some pics related to the ecology or environment.

Anyway, Do the mods have any ideas as to how we should incorporate and choose images?

Ulleungdont (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (I've taken the freedom to change the format of your links so that the images display here as a gallery, so we can more easily talk about which might be most useful.) As I said, feel free to insert some in the article yourself. For instance, File:Dokdo-Facilities.jpg might be useful for the "Construction" section, or File:Dokdo-Tourists.JPG for the section on "Demographics and economy". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them - I'm sure, so long as we make sure the page doesn't get over-cluttered, that there's useful stuff, not necessarily just for this article. Can I ask that we ensure that captions and alt text and so on maintain standard naming conventions though - I noticed on your website you were obviously using Korean naming conventions and I think we should ensure that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Korean)#Islands is maintained. Sorry to add that, but, y'know... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these. I hope that renaming the WARSHIP to something less dramatic like "police patrol boat" is ok (contrary to description it's not the navy but ROK Police) --moogsi^(blah) 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions broken

For the record: at this edit, our old pal S.J.B. used the Korean terminology for the rocks. I therefore changed it. Shii (tock) 16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2013

Wikipedia needs to put more FACTS on Dokdo, or whatever you call it. First, Currently it IS the land of SOUTH KOREA. Although there are some arguments going on about this island, It is the island of S.Korea.So editor should add that. Second, it is written that South Korea classifies Dokdo as their land, it actually is. So DON'T write CLASSIFY just write: it is currently S.Korea's land and then Japan classifies blablabla....... Uuuhhhhhvvhhg These two sounds simmilar but I really really hope that Wikipedia Users can READ FACTS ABOUT KOREA's ISLAND DOKDO. What I requested is ALL FACTS, I AM SURE ABOUT IT, IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT IS CURRENTLY S. KOREA's land.

Thanks for reading my request AND I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL CHANGE SOMETHINGS THAT ISN't A FACT. JUSTICE, THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS.

Rsjune (talk)

Please don't use all caps, as that's considered shouting on the internet, and thus is not very civil. Second, the article does currently clearly state the Korea occupies the islands and has de facto control over them. But, of course, since Wikipedia must be written neutrally, we cannot support one position in the argument over the other. If you know of more reliable sources that you think we should add, then please feel free to let us know, but we're not going to change the article to reflect your personal opinions (or the opinions of either government, for that matter). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

dokdo

Dear webmaster,

Hello. This is yoo-jin Lee who studies oceanography in South Korea. I have a project and research about marine environment and ecosystem, using your website. I really thank you for your website which provides useful contents for my research.

However, I have found some minor different information in your website from other sources during the research. In the map of your website, the name of the sea between Korea and Japan is described as "Sea of Japan". It seems unreasonable to use the name "Sea of Japan" which is decided in the period of imperialism because its original name is "East Sea" which has been used throughout history. Therefore, I believe that the body of water between Korea and Japan should be described as the “East Sea” or at least with the simultaneous use of both names; “East Sea/Sea of Japan.”

I would like to attach some references to help your understanding of this matter. I hope that errors in your website will be corrected. If you do not mind, could you let me know an e-mail address of the person in charge or another possible way to correction, please?

Thank you again for your help. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely, yoo-jin Lee

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoo gin (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you're part of an organized campaign that sends this same messages to websites all over the internet whenever they use the English name for the Sea rather than the Korean one. If you actually want to discuss the matter rather than put up a form letter, please go to Talk:Sea of Japan and discuss the matter there. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dokdo

Hello, I'd like to talk about one small detail in this article. I'm from South Korea, so I'd rather use the word "Dokdo" than "Liancourt Rocks".

In this article, it says that Dokdo(Liancourt Rocks) consists of 2 main islets and 35 smaller rocks. However, the truth is that Dokdo consists of 91 islands(rocks) in total, including 2 main islands called Dongdo(East Island), and Seodo(West Island). In other words, Dongdo, Seodo, and 89 other smaller islands make Dokdo.

I'd appreciate it if you consider this fact and edit the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimhyuna3011 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What is your neutral non-Korean/Japanesereliable source for this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sea lion

Changed 'sea lions' to 'Japanese sea lions' to clarify. I am aware of the issue, but this is NPOV.(I apologize for translating the POV-pushing comment, I should have thought more about it, but I was reckless)--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, is anyone willing to find a photo of a sea lion near the rocks? I don't have the time....--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 02:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed status

Can we change the 'disputed' status of those isles to smething else? I ask because under San Francisco treaty the isles are still Japanese and when Japan asked three times to bring the case to International Court of Justice and South Korean side refused to settle it every time. Since there was no dispute those siles can't be 'disputed' per se.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanchen (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? I believe the fact that South Korea physically occupies the islands and yet Japan continues to claim them clearly shows that there's a dispute. And your analysis of the SF treaty is just that--you analysis (well, to be fair, also the analysis of the US government), but it's not one shared by everyone--especially not South Korea. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the best proof that this article has reached a good consensus is that the only people proposing changes have really wacky ideas of how NPOV works. Shii (tock) 17:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 I like that analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea

Please edit the location of the islands to Sea of Japan/East Sea instead of just Sea of Japan as it has not been decided which one yet. This seems controversial to have just Sea of Japan on it and it would be greatly appreciated if you could add East Sea along with the other name so that the audience does not get confused of the islets' true location until the final consensus. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korealover14 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The common name of the sea in English is the 'Sea of Japan'. Shii (tock) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

please change the Sea of Japan to East Sea. Sea of Japan is clearly wrong write. 'East Sea' used since A.D. 414 or Longer. (It is written in 광개토대왕릉비, in Hanja, 廣開土大王陵碑) Of course, 'East Sea' used in different time. You can see it in Map of Joseon, PaldoChongDo(1531) Also, even in Japanese Old Maps, for Example, Asia Map(Katsuragawa, 1794) used 'East Sea'. Map(Dakahasi, 1809) too. lastly, it breaks global rules. Area that surrounding countries can't have name about one country without accept of other countries. East Sea can used because it's on east for two countries, China and Republic of Korea. And similar as North Sea. 110.15.5.246 (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The common name of the sea in English is the 'Sea of Japan'. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please change the name from "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea". As the other user had protested, he is right about the name. It breaks the international rule, and the common English name cannot be more important than the international regulations. 172.250.190.243 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Ryush00 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and discussions in the archives. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014

Location Sea of Japan Location Sea of Korea(East Sea) Rlarjsdn122 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The location of the islands should be modified from Sea of Japan to East Sea or at least to East Sea/Sea of Japan...

In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding of the location, it should be described both names at least.(East Sea/Sea of Japan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudae4 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and discussions in the archives. Britmax (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Location of Dokdo/Tokdo is "DONGHAE"

The Location of Dokdo is Donghae not Sea of Japan. Because of this unsolved problem Korea and Japan are still fighting. So if the Wikipedia is the dictionary for everyone in the world, wiki should respect every people including Koreans. At least, the location of Dokdo should be Donghae/Sea of Japan. There are so lot of reasons to say why Dokdo's location is Donghae. You could know it clearly at this site. http://maywespeak.com/ Thank you. 짱구보단 한국 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and discussions in the archives. Britmax (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2014

Please change "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea" with reference to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/asia/south-korea/ 1999charles (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not going to happen. Please see the notices at the top of this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah i totally agree...but, unfortunately, Korea's influence over other countries, or diplomatic power, is not that high...so, i guess it will happen in the futue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.128.139 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

location isn't Sea of Japan. Please modify. The East Sea is not the Sea of Japan. Please modify. Abcc0579 (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done See the first section above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Add "Under the de facto control of South Korea" or something similar in the lead

First of all, I am not Japanese nor Korean.

That being said, I believe the fact that South Korea has de facto control over these rocks should be mentioned in the lead, perhaps by changing

"Sovereignty over the islets is disputed between Japan and South Korea."

to

"While South Korea has de facto control over the islets, its sovereignty over them is contested by Japan."

Note that the Senkaku Islands lead mentions "Japanese control", the Kashmir lead mentions it being "administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China", the Kuril Islands lead mentions "All of the islands are under the Russian jurisdiction", and the Falkland Islands lead mentions "British administration". Liancourt is an anomaly here, and Wikipedia probably doesn't want casual readers to think that nobody has de facto control over Liancourt after reading just the lead.--Hinmatóowyalahtqit (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You already made the change, less than two days after proposing it here. Please always allow at least a week between proposing something and making the edit to allow people time to comment. That said, I agree with the edit. It makes things much more clear. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with the phrase de facto. As I understand it, de facto is quite different from legal control. I would prefer phrases "While Korea maintains legal sovereignty over the Liancourt Islands, it is contested by Japan." Sorry if anyone is offended. Oh, and I'm neither Korean nor Japanese, too. Ignis Fulgur (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

COI disclosure: I'm Korean.

I think Ignis' version is better, but Hinmatóowyalahtqit's version is fine to me as well. — regards, Revi 15:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee placed this article on article probation in 2008. It is now proposing to replace that article probation with standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to the Liancourt Rocks. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Liancourt Rocks where your comments are invited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency with ferries

One part of the article says that there is daily ferry service, but in another place it says that ferries can only land 1 out of every 40 days. Needs to be fixed by someone who knows. Kgdickey (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Liancourt Rocks. 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/20120224224545/http://www.globaltimes.cn:80/world/asia-pacific/2011-02/626698.html to http://www.globaltimes.cn/world/asia-pacific/2011-02/626698.html
• 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 to let others know.

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} 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

It has previously been suggested that this article could be expanded by addition of translated text from the corresponding article in the Japanese and the corresponding article in the Korean Wikipedias. However, due to the current length of this article, and the POV of the two suggested sources, it would seem to be better not to include such translations, but instead, to the extent feasible, use those articles for ideas on how to expand this article in an NPOV manner. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

Under "Climate" in this article it says "on average ferries can only dock about once in every forty days". Later under "Demographics and Economy" it says "one ferry provides rides to the islets every day". This appears to be an internal contradiction requiring correction by someone who is familiar with the situation.--Amnicolist (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liancourt Rocks. 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/20090301043336/http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr:80/board/history/list.php to http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/board/history/list.php

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

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} 20:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Another East Sea request

Please see naming lameness rule at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Hello, author? My name is Seong-ho Hwang. I belong in South Korea. I write a letter Because You wrote the mistaken information. You should turn the mistaken information into the right information. First of all, You should turn Sea of Japan into East Sea. According to Sam-guk-Sa-gi(1145), Sin-jeung-dong-kuk-yeo-ji-seung-ram of Eight State Map(1531) and Yeo-ji-do of A-kuk-chong-do (late eighteenth century) etc. So many Korean historical records, It said that "East Sea is between Korea and Japan" On the other hand, Althogh Sea of Japan wrote Great Universal Geographic Map(1602), It is not spread out. Also until the middle of the 18th century, literature of Japan is not use Sea of Japan. In other words, Sea of Japan is shorter than East Sea. Finally, You should turn Takeshima into Takeshima( claimer of Japan) Because It has not been solved yet. Also If you write Takeshima, We will study skewed history. So, I want to turn Takeshima into Takeshima (claimer of Japan)! I want to turn the mistaken information into the right information. Thanks to reading my request! Bye! S.H Hwang (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ and discussions in the archives. Britmax (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

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.

---

Dokdo is the name for Liancourt Rocks. Liancourt Rocks is a name that french people changed for themselves. Also, Dokdo is legally Korean territory! Please change the wrong parts and prove that wikipedia is truthfull and able to believe.

175.192.114.17 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Request is not in English, declined. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

일본해라는표기는잘못된것이고동해라는표기가옳습니다또한독도의역사는이사부장군이우산국을정벌하면서신라영토가되었고이후서양인들이강치를잡아가게되었고카이로조약에의해우리땅이되었습니다또한다케시마라는표현은일본인들이마음대로부르는것이고 리앙쿠르룩암초는서양인들이마음대로붙인이름이니삼가해주십시요 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 한규원 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 October 2016 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Request is not in English, declined. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

일본해가아닌동해로수정부탁드립니다 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 한규원 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 October 2016 (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.

East sea

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.

---

The Sea of Japan is an incorrect nomenclature and can be even considered illegal by international standards; its correct one is the East Sea, pertaining to Korea. Also, It is very disconcerting to see the term wrongly placed since this article seems to be written by a Japanese user. Wikipedia has grown to be one of the most referred database around the world and to witness this inability to precisely place a term to such a raucous theme between countries undermines its reputation as a worldwide dictionary. Moreover, to see this article protected by a policy which designates selected persons to interfere with such a matter makes one question the working intelligence of the wikipedia executives. Lisa9921 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing illegal about it at all. If you can't be bothered to follow the rules at the top of this page, you will be blocked. The naming edit war between Koreans and Japanese (and I am neither, for the record) has been going on for many years now, and there is no tolerance for those who choose to ignore the rules here. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid, Nihonjoe, your "There is nothing illegal about it at all" sentence might need a substantial reference. As for my stance there are fundamental Legal ones, though I may not be the most professional one to provide them online. And I am greatly relieved that you are not a Japanese, not in that I bear any grudge against the nationality but in that your saving her reputation by neutral siding. I respect Japan very much and would have been dismayed if a japanese thought it was a mere " naming edit war between koreans and japanese". Your name came up last when it came to the list of editors, meaning you were the most recent one to change the information on the Liancourt rocks page. Then I naturally or erroneously thought your contributions were accepted due to some regulations while my attempts at clicking would be blocked from start. This page, open to so many anonymous users, seems like a petty battleground for mislead patriotists and I would be greatly relieved if someone could at least offer a legistlative guideline on such confusable subjects. Lisa9921 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lisa, instead of saying "it's illegal" you might want to show why you consider it to be illegal. Take care not to make legal threats, and please refer to previous discussions on this and other talk pages before commenting or editing on this controversial topic. Oh and you wouldn't happen to be a single purpose account created specifically for stirring up trouble on wikipedia, would you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear spacecowboy, I am far from a single purpose account " to stir up trouble". I am a very busy person offline and was just astonished when Nihonjoe alleged I be wrong. I received your message and will try to make a list of legal supportive statements substantiating this situation. As for referring to previous talk pages, I regret to tell you that there were 2 or 3 talk pages written in Korean, asking the editor to please change the Sea of Japan to East Sea; but they somehow disappeared after Nihonjoe edited this page.

I am very upset and almost sad that international support could be based on a piece of distorted information.Maybe from an oustsider's viewpoint, especially if they were affected by others' arguments,my assertations may sound absurd or trying to "stir up trouble on wikipedia". However it is not the case and I will try hard to make a supportive background information page even if I was a mere passerby before. Lisa9921 (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe on English language Wikipedia, requests should be made in English?

And seriously, this request has been made a million times before. Please look at the following link before you waste any more of your time on renaming requests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_of_Japan Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I read the linked page, and I felt sorry for the frustration you must have faced. Anyone not Korean or Japanese could have been bothered and most likely have seen it as an endless dispute between the two nations.

I found out the official international stance regarding the dispute; while Korea alleges that East Sea be an equal term to The Sea of Japan, thus requesting the international term be The Sea of Japan/ East Sea, the Japanese maintain against the proposal reducing it to The Sea of Japan. "The Sea of Japan"is an uncomfortable term for many Koreans most significantly because of its historical insinuation. Korea had been under Japanese sovereignty until 1945.08 and had lost her influence over international geographic terms. During the colonial period Japan consistantly used "The Sea of Japan" to designate the sea between itself and Korea and the term came to be more widely acknowleged by westerners.

I initially started this talk page sure that the only term correct by any standards is "The East Sea". I also presumed many knew about the bitterness between Korea and Japan, and that wikipedia could change the disputed "Sea of Japan" to something else. I was told by some Korean History lecturers that the only one legitimate term is East Sea when one refers to the ocean Liancourt rocks is situated in; their argument regarding the term was more related to the ownership of the rocks than the nomenclature itself and I probably went too far if I boldly requested that outsiders such as most wikipedians understand the situation. After some research, I concluded that even though it is quite undisputable to many, an international term regarding the sea should wait for more definite declaration from IHO( International Hydrographic Organization) which will be announced upcoming April 2017.

I somewhat naiively tried to rectify something that needed not only the attention from myself but also many others. I tried in my limited time to do some research but is afraid I could have done better. I probably wouldn't write in this talk section in the future but if I do I wish I could benefit someone who reads it.

Lisa9921 (talk) 18:22, 21 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.

i think that change name

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.

---

korea and japan have a discussion..but,,nowdays..Dokdo(liancourt) is korean terriotry..legally..so change name of liancourt..to Dokdo.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jang8962 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 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.

change name of liancourt rocks to Dokdo

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.

---

basis of WP:COMMONNAME mostly people use Dokdo..so we must to change the name.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jang8962 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, you need to bring proof. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Then do u have proof that many people use liancourt rocks Jang8962 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jang8962: please read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Liancourt Rocks. -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 2 March 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.

How Dokdo became Liancourt Rocks on Wikipedia

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.

---

When there was a vote regarding the name of this article many years ago, admins unfairly did a IP check on accounts that voted for Dokdo, but did not do the IP check for accounts that voted for Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima. Later, it was found that accounts that voted for Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima also contained sock puppets, meaning votes for Dokdo should have won. Admins here are unfairly biased against Korean position, which by international law and its de facto control of the islets has the naming rights to the islets. Liancourt Rocks itself is an unfair position to the Korean side because Korean side naturally has a much stronger case.

The act of disputing does not automatically grant both sides the same amount of claim to something. Japan has a terrible historical case and also per international law. Japanese fishermen who hunted for sea lions on the islets had to get permits to go to a foreign land in order to fish there. This automatically is acknowledgement by the Japanese at the time that the land is Korean.

There are also numerous Japanese maps designating either Dokdo or Ulleungdo as Korean, and since Dokdo was visible from Ulleungdo on a clear day, it's evident that Dokdo also was Korean.

I demand a recount and a re-assessment of the dispute by the Arbitration Committee, which had banned me (Wikimachine) for 1 year without any explanation. I also demand an apology and an explanation as to why they had banned me without any explanation whatsoever.

(Chunbum Park (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC))

Also read my article at Citizendium on Dokdo, which is an exemplary article showing how the article on Wikipedia can also be transformed to a more factually correct and truthful (neutral) article. (Chunbum Park (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC))

And in my opinion the name of the sea cannot be Sea of Japan when the island in the middle of the sea is Korean. Sure, Sea of Japan is more widely used, but I firmly believe that there should be dual usage of Sea of Japan and East Sea in the form of "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" in Japan-related articles, and East Sea (Sea of Japan) in Korea-related articles. If this is not the official Wikipedia rules, I say we change the rules because that makes more sense.

Furthermore, you cannot declare pro-Dokdo side as blatant POV violation because then you cannot test the consensus of a position that makes more sense factually. (Chunbum Park (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC))

As you said, "Sea of Japan is more widely used". Until that changes, it will not be changing here. Please see the notice at the top of this page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:53, 30 March 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.

Can't we set a test?

Instead of having RfCs every 7 years, just in case international consensus has changed, can we not use one of the tests we have recently been applying to allow people to check any time they like that international consensus hasn't changed? I believe that the current tests have demonstrated that uses of both names simultaneously like "Dokdo/Takeshima" are far more common than uses of either one without the other. While that remains the case, we don't really need any more RfCs or long discussions, we can say "come back when Name A is clearly much more common than (Name A and Name B together) + Name B by itself. This will take much longer than seven years in my opinion. All we need is a test that can't be cherry-picked. Do we have a test like that now? Siuenti (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such test. It would likely require a bot or a person to review a specified set of accepted reliable sources on a periodic basis to determine if anything had been changed. And we don't have to do this every seven years. That just happened to be the time frame this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You could ask people who think it should be changed to perform the test. If they do and it's not anywhere near 50% they will presumably give up. If they come to you and say "oh look it's much more than 50% now", and that seems plausible, you'd have to double check. Siuenti (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean something like this: "If you are expressing an opinion that the article should be moved from the current "Liancourt Rocks" title, please provide multiple, reliable sources that support the change. Sources will be reviewed closely to make sure they are reliable and not just propaganda for one side or the other."? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that a test that cannot be cherry-picked Siuenti (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing. Any test can be cherry-picked. That's why the admins who close the discussion have to review whatever evidence is presented when they are determining consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How confident are you of that statement? Is there some way you could double check yourself? Somewhere you could ask? Siuenti (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you are completely confident, I request that you double check if you can think of a way. Siuenti (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm positive. I also think that anyone who thinks it's possible to create such a test is deluding themselves. If someone else wants to chime in on whether it's even possible to devise a test that can't be gamed somehow, they are free to do so. I've answered the question, and I don't think it's productive to keep telling you the same thing over and over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liancourt Rocks. 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.dokdomuseum.go.kr:80/board/history/list.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119103856/http://www.enviroasia.info/K/?p=1259 to http://www.enviroasia.info/K/?p=1259
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714121130/http://www.enviroasia.info/J/?p=6168 to http://www.enviroasia.info/J/?p=6168
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://library.kmi.re.kr/w03_01e.asp?gs_DType=m&gs_DControlNo=52190
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065204/https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/01/177_30015.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2009/01/177_30015.html

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) 07:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles

So what Wikipedia:Article titles seems to like is:

1. Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
2. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
3. Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
4. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
5. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

It doesn't talk about WP:Neutrality but maybe it slipped their minds. Siuenti (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) Siuenti (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is, but Wikipedia:Article titles takes precedence. WP:AT may not mention neutrality, but WP:NPOV applies to all material including titles, I assume.

Of the Five Virtues of titles, I think we can in this case dispense with Consistency, and probably Conciseness, as being not really applicable here. Recognizability, Naturalness, and Precision, in this case, I think largely turn on a single question: what is the WP:COMMONNAME? If one can be established, we should use it (I argued above that there it appears there might be one, and it is Takeshima). And if there's no clear WP:COMMONNAME, it comes down to a coin flip really. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Boring back and forth including banned user Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

International Court of Justice for comparison There is essentially no common name for Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks in English because it is not well known. The naming should come down to sovereignty and historical claim. Korean name Dokdo is the best candidate. (Chunbum Park (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) In terms of sovereignty, does this page look like the International Court of Justice at the Hague to you? What makes you think Wikipedians are qualified to decide something like that? Siuenti (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC) I am not saying we are the ICJ. I am saying we are grownups who are intelligent enough to absorb information from academic articles about Dokdo/Takeshima and accurately assess the consensus among academics. (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) I think sovereignty is decided by lawyers and judges not academics, and probably not by consensus.Siuenti (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Academics also have opinion on who has stronger sovereignty in a dispute. I am not talking about the decision that has yet to be made by ICJ, but the overall consensus among academics who have really studied the issue on who has stronger claim to the islets, including naming rights, sovereignty, historical claim, and claim by geography. On an issue as sensitive as this, you need to be able understand the details and intricacies of the arguments of the claims made. The historical and territorial dispute between Korea and Japan is inseparable to the naming issue. And definitely Korea has a stronger claim per international law, historical evidence, and geography. (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) If people have to be able to "details and intricacies" to make a judgement it hardly seems likely that there is a clear consensus. Siuenti (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) There is consensus among academics including Japanese scholars that Korea has a stronger claim. In other words, Dokdo is Korean territory. We just need to reflect that consensus in this article. (Chunbum Park (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) Based on your word? Sorry, we'll stick with NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Based on the evidence cited. (Chunbum Park (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) Based on the sources cherrypicked. You're a nationalist. Get lost. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Based on a wide survey of many sources, I come to that conclusion. You have no idea about this dispute, as I do. I wrote an article on Citizendium that was approved. You are just a newcomer who has no idea on what's going on in this dispute. I am sure the admins will listen to me. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) Nihonjoe's an admin. Glad you've got his ear. I've already pointed out the POV in the Citizendium article's lead---no doubt more of this horseshit follows. Easy to get something like that approved in a walled garden with a tiny population. Having trouble pulling a fast one with so many eyes on you here, ain'tcha? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I am very happy with where this is going. I want a slow and steady process of fixing this article's name and content to more accurately reflect the consensus of international academics, including Japanese scholars, who support Korean claim and reject Japanese claim. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

Please don't feed the nationalists

Please don't bicker and label people - its a good way to be banned from the article. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't feed the nationalists, of which Chunbum Park is clearly one—just check out their article at Citizendium on the islands: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Dokdo, which uses oh-so-neutral wording such as "one of the more serious disputes between South Korea and its former colonial ruler" in the lead! We don't give any weight to who may or may not have greater historical or sovereign claim, assertions which are inherently POV. Both the Japanese and Korean names are poisoned with nationalist rhetoric, and both sides are motivated to make sure their preferred name gets as much media exposure as possible. The number of publications (most of which are horribly obscure) will never tell us how many people will recognize one name over the other. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC) How about looking at sources which are neutral, well-respected and not too obscure such as the BBC and WSJ? Siuenti (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Because Wikipedia doesn't prefer newssources over academic ones. Regardless, there is no COMMONNAME, as the COMMONNAME would have to be the one name overwhelmingly in use, not merely one that's in greater use than others. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC) For the record, here's a recent BBC timeline of South Korea that uses Liancourt with no mention of Dokdo or Takeshima. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah "overwhelmingly" good word. Is there even anything to debate here? Siuenti (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Overwhelming might actually apply to "uses both" Siuenti (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC) ... still no reason to discuss it... Siuenti—"overwhelmingly" cannot possibly apply to more than one choice. Are you a native English speaker? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I mean "sources which use both of them have overwhelming majority over sources which use just one" Siuenti (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC) I am not a nationalist. I am a factualist. I am a realist. The reality is that South Korea has much stronger claim to the islets than Japan, and there is nothing wrong with calling Japan a "former colonial ruler". Your usage of bold font to exaggerate your point doesn't work. I've said this before, and I will say it again. The act of disputing does not automatically grant both sides of the dispute the same claim or weight of argument. In other words, climate change by human activity is disputed by some scientists, but over 97% of scientists agree that it's happening and it's caused by human activity, and the Wikipedia article should and does reflect this reality. Same goes for this dispute between Korea and Japan. The consensus among academics is that Korea has a much stronger claim than Japan on historical front, under international law, and by geography. Just because someone (in this case, Japan) disputes something doesn't mean 1) it's legitimate 2) it gets the same amount of weight as the mainstream view. (Chunbum Park (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) Also, unlike the Wikipedia article, the article at Citizendium can be cited. Because it has undergone a rigorous approval process. The only part that is not finished is the debate guide - because I stopped working on it. (Chunbum Park (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)) You're a "realist" in the same sense as a "race realist". Take your nationalist babble to some other forum on the internet. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ...the article at Citizendium can be cited. By whom? Where? There's absolutely no evidence for that on Wikipedia itself, as a glance through the archives at WP:RSN shows. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) By anyone. I don't really care if people on Wikipedia don't use Citizendium as citation. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) They won't. Nationalist sources such as yours are unacceptable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC) It's not nationalist. It's factual and accurate. It's reality. Korea has stronger claim to the islets. The islets are Korean. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) To Chunbum Park: you need to stop what you are doing here. Repeating over and over again that "Korea has the better claim" is unhelpful and disruptive, because (1) it is arguing your personal opinion, which we are not supposed to be doing here, and (2) it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. We simply do not go by such a criterion when making our naming decisions. No amount of argument from you is going to change that. If you continue to argue your views of the legal merits of Korea's claim to the island, you will be excluded from this discussion, if necessary through a block. – To everybody else: please keep the tone calm and civil. Labelling people as "nationalists" is rarely helpful, and insulting them isn't either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Fut.Perf.: Nationalism's at the heart of the whole issue. We're supposed to deal with it without naming it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Then you will have an absurd situation in which a Korean terrritory will be called a Japanese name because it's more frequently mentioned in dubious publications (which by the way includes surnames), even if all I said is true. I am not only calling for a name change but to revamp the entire article to reflect the consensus among international, Korean and Japanese academics. No amount of maneuvering to silence me will change this reality, and you will simply have an absurd outcome. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) Furthermore without talking about sovereignty and historical evidence, I cannot address the issue of NPOV relating to the naming issue. I demand you withdraw your threat to block me and silence me on these issues. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)) @Chunbum Park: What you need to do here is to point to multiple reliable sources (of which Citizendium is not, so please stop mentioning it as such). In order to be considered reliable, they can not be simply spouting propaganda from the Korean side of the argument. They need to be recognized academic or other highly-respected sources that present a coherent reasoning supporting one side or the other. This is how we determine if international usage has changed in the last 7 years. If you're unable to do that, and only willing to point to Citizendium and spout your opinion that "things have changed, believe me", then you will be blocked as disruptive to this discussion. It's not a threat, and it's not "[silencing] you on these issues". It's merely a consequence of which you've been made aware now. You have 100% control over whether that consequence is applied. If you can participate as I explained, by presenting reliable sources to consider in this discussion, then you have no need to worry about the possibility of being blocked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Liancourt?

Anyone know how "Liancourt" is supposed to be pronounced? Kinda French-sounding? Silent T? Siuenti (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• It should be pronounced lee-an-coor (the French pronunciation, which is the pronunciation the Jpaanese version of the article gives), but everyone I've met who's said it out loud in English has pronounced it lion court. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the lead sentence really need all of this:

(Korean pronunciation: [tokt͈o]; Hangul: 독도; Hanja: 獨島, "solitary island") in Korean, and Takeshima (竹島/たけしま?, "bamboo island")

How about putting the Hanja, translations, and either the kanji or the hiragana into a box somewhere. Then you could really go crazy and add the Revised Romanization and phonetic hangul and the kunrei-shiki and the katakana and the French pronunciation of Liancourt and the English one if we knew what it was... Siuenti (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We use modified Hepburn and never kunreishiki as a pronunciation guide on Wikipedia—and never hiragana, which is utterly pointless. The different scripts could certainly be handled better—perhaps shunt them to the end of the lead, or even into the body? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've heard a number of people use the pronunciation of lee-an-cort. Not uncommon for Americans to mispronounce French words, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How to Google

1. Go to google books.
2. Search for "Takeshima"
3. Look at a result.

   If it's about some islands and you find "Takeshima" without "Dokdo" that is support for "Takeshima"

   If you find the book has both, that is support for the status quo.

4. Now try "Dokdo"
5. Let us know what you find.

Siuenti (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti: The RfC serves the purpose of providing a place to link to whenever another nationalist shows up demanding the article be renamed. Nihonjoe almost certainly realized the result would be status quo and was unlikely to be aiming at an actual article name change. Please stop doing this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

He asked me to do research for him because he thought "international consensus on the name may have changed" while he "almost certainly realized the result would be status quo". Hmm. Anyway, as I was saying I think this thread would be a good place to link whenever another nationalist "nationalist" shows up demanding the article be renamed. Siuenti (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Demanding renaming of the article does not necessarily make one a nationalist, especially if the islets are indeed Korean! The act of disputing does not automatically grant Japan the same level of claim to the islets as Korea, which has stronger claim per international law and historical evidence, as well as geography. (Chunbum Park (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

Sorry I should have put "nationalist" in quotes, I just like repeating what other people have said. Siuenti (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay you and Turkey can echo each other's false claims all you want, but you are wrong. (Chunbum Park (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

If I echo it in quotes it means I don't really mean it. I'm not saying you are a nationalist. I don't know if you are a nationalist or not, and I apologize again for carelessly saying that you were one. Siuenti (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if @Nihonjoe: would like to confirm or deny that he "realized the result would be status quo" Siuenti (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As I lack psychic ability, I have no way to "realize" what the outcome would be. I can always guess, but then, so can anyone else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)