Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Dispute of Dokdo

  • Investigating carefully, the dispute is mainly due to the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910. Essentially, the dispute is not founded. Escalating the dispute issue seems the attitude of the Japanese. Korean government have been taking ignoring Japanese claims until recently. --Jongbhak 04:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Present Liancourt rock is biased to Japanese claim of the islands. The historical division is incorrect. It reflects Japanese recording and views. It ignores objective findings and older recordings from Korean side. This whole Liancourt rock page and the content is a good propaganda page for making a dispute issue. Westerners may think that it is objective to put two sides' opinions. Dokdo case is a different thing. --Jongbhak 02:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree. I wrote on something that said a Korean view, and then later, someone erased it out, saying it was unsupported, when I clearly put sources on it. --Zippie

Dokdo vs Liancourt Rocks, Takeshima vs Liancourt Rocks

  • Either Dokdo or Takeshima should be used (or altogether) instead of Liancourt Rocks. If there is any legal dispute, then, it should be settled legally. In whatever situation Liancourt Rocks is not proper. Chinese used to call Europe western babarians altogether. Because EU contries had some territorial disputes, should Chinese put Western babaria on their encyclopedia? Until the dispute was settled? The present occupants of Dokdo are Koreans (you will see Korean flags there). The pieces of land for now is Dokdo. To accommodate Japanese point of view, in discussion, we can make links to Takeshima (which is fine). It is the same as Japanese call Korea with their own pronounciation (Gangoku) among themselves. However, putting such 3rd party name makes the whole dispute confusing. 1) Korea is occupying 2) Japan challenges 3) Decision made 4) either Dokdo or Takeshima should be chosen 5) However, at present, it is Korean occupation--> so, until the dispute is settled, it is legally Dokdo(with possibility to become Takeshima). NOT Liancourt Rocks. I personally do not mind which side eventually takes it. However, until completely settled, we should be proper. --Jong 13:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Liancourt Rocks is a proper English name, also used in the CIA maps. It is not confusing at all, as the name refers uniquely to the islands. It also avoids taking sides in the dispute. Jpatokal 03:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Daemado(Tsushima) is claimed by Koreans for long as their territory. However, it is called Tsushima internationally (I guess it has an English name). It is the same case as Dokdo. One day, it may be occupied by Koreans (or not), but its proper name is Tsushima as it is occupied by Japan). Recently, a Korean city that is close to declaired it belongs to Korea. --143.248.31.61 04:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They call the island Daemado in Korea, and so do Tsushima in Japan. Among different languages, and even different dialects, common names of a place might differ from each other, so no problem here. Since Danube River flows around many countries, there are many different name for Danube, and although it doesn't have to do with England or USA, it even has its own English name! English name "Danube" might be a transcription from another name, like Latin Danubius or something. This is how language changes and evolves. Back to the island, Tsushima is an English romanization of つしま, and actually sounds different from つしま in pronunciation. If "Tsushima" is the common name in English language, and the article describes how the island is called around in Korea as well as in Japan, the title of the article would be fine. Plus, Tsushima is not a disputed territory. --Puzzlet Chung 00:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But the Korean council of Masan lay claim to Tsushima on the March 18, 2005, as evidenced from here.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/03/18/s_korea_japan_islets_dispute_escalates/

Mr Tan 19:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there is no proper name for English, Dokdo will do. But “Liancourt Rocks” seems to be proper name in English. So I support “Liancourt Rocks.” We should not forget here is a English version of Wikipedia.--Sketch 01:40, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
The English name of Dokdo is "Hornet's rocks", or "Hornet Rock". Whatever the case, it Liancourt is not English. Also, it is difficult to pronounce.
Comparing with Danube river is not appropriate here. As the river is shared by a several counties, but the island isn't shared at all. But occupied by Korea. Please check Senkaku Islands. It is occupied by Japan. Though it has english names - Pinnacle Islands and Fishing Islands (Simplified Chinese: 钓鱼台列岛; Traditional Chinese: 釣魚台列嶼; pinyin: Diàoyútái Lièdǎo; Wade-Giles: tiao-yü-t'ai-lieh-yu). But the title is set as Japanese name as it is occupied by Japan. So the title should be Dokdo. FYI, the most of Japanese recognize the Takeshima(竹島) as the famous vacation islands that belongs to Gamagori city which is located between Nagoya and Tokyo. http://www.kankou.city.gamagori.aichi.jp/aquarium/ -- Gene H Park 08:00, Mar 31st 2005 (UTC)
1. English name should be used for the Senkaku/Diaoyutai as well, imho.
2. No, most Japanese do not recognize "Takeshima" as "the famous vacation islands that belongs to Gamagori city which is located between Nagoya and Tokyo." The most well-known "Takeshima" among the Japanese (except those living near Gamagori) is obviously the Liancourt rocks as it is being reported as a big diplomatic issue with Korea by major news media throughout the country. Hermeneus 09:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Don't rename the article. Liancourt rocks is sufficiently non-partisan as not to provoke people into conniptions. Once the issue of ownership is settled, rename the page, but leave it until then. --Zonath 06:29, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
In that case, we should rename 'Tsushima' to something else. As it is claimed by both countries. The main issue here is not whether it is settled or not. It has been settled for long time. Japan's imperialistic right wing brings the issue. A lot of outsiders do not see that. What Japan wants is exactly this kind of situation where outsiders are duped to believe that there is some dispute issue. That was why for decades Korean government ignored any claims by Japan. --Jongbhak 02:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd be game for that, as long as the article for 'Jeju' was renamed to 'Quelpart'. However, the question of Jeju and Tsushima was settled by the San Francisco treaty. The issue of Dokdo was not, which means that the ownership of the rocks is an open question at the moment. A Korean claim to Tsushima and a Japanese claim to Jeju, if they were made (a misguided and reactionary bill passed by a backwater city government which was later rebuffed by the national government doesn't count -- no offense, Masan), would not be the same simply because both those islands are internationally recognized as belonging to one party or the other. --Zonath 03:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Tsushima Islands and Senkaku Islands have already been pointed out (though the former has etymologically English name). One could make the case that Dokdo is really the English name for the rocks; a Google search for "Dokdo" turns up far more results (55,000) than "Takeshima islands" (615), "Takeshima rocks" (7), or Takeshima and rocks, islets, islands or any other term not used as a phrase. The pages which use "Liancourt Rocks" or "Liancourt Islands" is insignificant in comparison -- mostly WP and mirrors. There seems to be precedent in naming disputed territories after the version used by the occupying authority, regardless of its legitimacy. --Xiaopo ℑ 01:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Really? When using Google, I ended up getting 35,800 hits on Liancourt, 90,000 on Dokdo and Tokdo together (about 85,000 for Dokdo and 5,000 for Tokdo), and 113,000 hits on Takeshima. If I use restrictive quotes, as in "Takeshima Islands" or "Dokdo Islands", I get 1,100 and 880, respectively. And the funny thing is that it automatically routes me through the Korean Google site. In addition, the only non-Japanese/non-Korean map I could find which even showed the islets (they're pretty small) was the map in the CIA world factbook, which labelled the islets as "Liancourt Rocks". Of course, the CIA map might not reflect international opinion, but rather the US policy of non-engagement in the dispute between South Korea and Japan. Anyhow, I don't feel like nitpicking anymore, so I'll go ahead and withdraw my above support for the name of Liancourt Rocks, but am not even going to touch the issue of what the name should be for this article. --Zonath 03:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


I think that it is really immature that a country the size of Japan is trying to extend its sea borders. I was searching this topic on the internet. I found a site that was pro-Takeshima. It said that Korea was illegally claiming the land. That is not true. I agree that older historical evidence is being ignored from the Korean side. They need a mediator because each country and government is out to persue their own agenda. CIA World Factbook is calling them the Liancourt Rocks. I don't like either government very much. The sad thing is, the Japanese Educational System is teaching that the island is Takeshima and is Japan's with no hard evidence. The map the Japanese are using as evidence is a outdated map of feudal Japan in 185os. It is inaccurate. At that time more than half of Asia was Japanese territory.

South Korea vs Republic of Korea

Correction was made to this article which cited the nation "South Korea" repeatedly, when the correct name is the "Republic of Korea", or ROK. There is no South Korea or North Korea, both have proper names recognized by the United Nations - although in the USA the common references are to North and South Korea - which is useful but incorrect.

I see your point, but "The Republic of Korean military"? You're putting political correctness in front of grammar here. Here's a compromise: just "Korean military". Jpatokal 11:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect, as the Democratic Republic of Korea - what the Americans call North Korea - is Korean as well. As there may be a chance that the North Koreans might intervene should Japan attempt to reoccupy the islands, we should make a distinction between the Koreas at this point in time to avoid confusion.
Republic of Korea is accurate. I hold my point.

Empire Building and the Falklands Islands precedent

The attempt for Japan to once again attempt in 2005 to create an empire for internal political reasons makes this issue a very hot one. Readers are encouraged to look at this article as a way to understand the discussion which follows.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200503/kt2005031616153311950.htm

Readers as well should see the Wikipedia article on the situation which became the "Falklands War", and which had a similar approach to the occupation of a small series of islands which provoked a war between the United Kingdom and Argentina when those islands were invaded and occupied by civilians attempting to reclaim the land for internal political purposes to support a faltering economy.

It should be mentioned that these Korean islands are in the EAST SEA as named by both Koreas and China, but which Japan calls the "Sea of Japan" - the Tokto islands are within the East Sea, and it should be noted that Japan calls this by their own name, which indeed it may do, as they also call the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean by their own names, but this is particular to their country and does not reflect anything but Japanese opinion.

Blatantly POV paragraph excised from page:

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

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

And again...

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

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

Samguk Sagi

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

Dokdo vs Tokto

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

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

Ulleungdo (following Revised Romanization) is a much larger island to the west of Dokdo. The island state of Usanguk was based on Ulleungdo, and ever since it was incorporated into the Korean state of Silla, it has been tied to mainland Korea. It is now a part of Gangwon Province. It has never been claimed by Japan. So stressing the relationship between Ulleungdo and Dokdo (such as the traditional use of Dokdo as a base for fishing boats from Ulleungdo) helps the Korean POV, since Ulleungdo is indisputably Korean. The Japanese POV tends to stress the long-time status of Dokdo as uninhabited islets, thereby downplaying the ties with Ulleungdo. --Iceager 07:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Good point. A small note: Ulleungdo is a part of North Gyeongsang Province, with itself as a "gun(rhymes with "moon")." noirum 12:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
My bad. I stand corrected. --Iceager 02:53, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, the DPRK also claims Dokdo/Tokdo (along with the rest of Korean territory), and continues to use the McC/R system of romanization for which 'Tokdo' would be correct. Of course, not many North Koreans are likely to stumble upon this page, so for the purpose of consistency, Dokdo should probably be the standard for the Korean name. Ulleungdo was claimed by Japan in the past, but the disposition of that island, along with all other territories claimed by both Japan and Korea (such as Tsushima and Jeju) was settled shortly after World War II, and are not disputed territories except in the minds of a few ultra-nationalists on either side of the Sea of Japan/East Sea. --Zonath 06:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

External links

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

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

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

Sea of Japan?

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

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

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

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

You can say it in Korean version, but not in English language websites. You must respect the decision of international society. kunitaka 8:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense and you do not understand the meaning of the UNCSGN resolution, which applies only to areas owned by nations. The Sea is international territory not owned by Japan or Korea. This has been debated before, see Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan. Jpatokal 03:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
China does not own "the Yellow Sea", but we call it so. No one calls it "West Sea". This rules applies to the Sea of Japan.kunitaka 04:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Both the Koreans and the Chinese call it the Yellow Sea, and the name is not in dispute. (Not that this matters, because the Liancourt Rocks are not in the Yellow Sea.) Jpatokal 06:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html  kunitaka 08:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Dispute resolution attempt

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

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

My opinions are:

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

Jpatokal

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

Kunitaka`s message

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

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

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

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

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

Koreans pronounce "Tongyo" instead of "Tokyo". The word "Tongyo" is the local language and "the East Sea" is too. Please look at the following map issued by France in 1894. kunitaka 19:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC) http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2004/01/15/200401150000801in_homecul.jpg

"East Sea" is not a term in the Korean language; it's an English translation of the Korean term. And in any case, Korea is not claiming possession of Tokyo! If you want a comparable example, look at Kuril_islands, which provides both Japanese and Russian names. Markalexander100 10:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Please look at a magazine "TIME" http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/koreawatcher/docs/seaofjapan/200301031131334500_1.jpg If Koreans write "the East Sea", western people do not understand where it is.kunitaka 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant. "Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea)" is completely unambiguous. Jpatokal 17:02, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Kunitaka, if we ask for neutral third-party arbitration of this issue, would you be willing to accept their results? In other words, if they say "East Sea is OK" then you stop reverting... and, of course, if they say "East Sea is not OK" then I (& MarkAlexander) stop reverting. Jpatokal 03:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

of course it is OK to reverting. The problem is that in Wikipedia which name will take precedence. And in this time "Sea of Japan" takes precedence over "East Sea",and so on.Bright5005 23:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

You do realise that most maps before the 20th century have the East Sea (Sea of Japan) labelled as "The Korean Sea" or the "Orient Sea." Solert 22:04, 24 Feb 2005 (ETS)

We can do this together

Here are a few thoughts on the current dispute. Maybe we should all read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not again. It states: (6) not propoganda or advocacy. In this case this means that the article describes the Liancourt Rocks. Can anyone contribute a bit more on the geography, or the people living there (how many, what do they do, does the Korean government pay them)? It's just a thought to make a better (more balanced) article. As for propaganda, Wikipedia should describe the dispute, but not conclude what is the correct view. NPOV means stating the two sides and that's it.

United States quote

User:Kunitaka added the following p: However, the United States mentioned "This normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shiname Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea." Can you provide a source for this? Who said this, when and where? Jpatokal 01:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Google turns up only [2], which appears to be a post on a message board. Markalexander100 02:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am glad that you asked me about it. Please read them (November 14, 1949., Undated in 1950, and July 19, 1951.) FRUS is the offical book published by the U.S government. [3] kunitaka 02:22, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"A note to the Korean ambassador". Not a policy document. Markalexander100 02:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The comments predate the events they are placed after in the article; the relevant period (1950) is already covered. Markalexander100 01:46, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe kunitaka-san should add the source mentioned above and its date to the paragraph newly written by him. Corruptresearcher 23:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've removed K's paragraph and added a sentence to the United States policy section mentioning the existence of said documents. If the entire FRUS is online somewhere it would be nice to link to them as well. Jpatokal 01:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contribution from 220.73.165.80

220.73.165.80's recent edit had some information which might be useful in it; I've reverted for now because in adding the info the previous article was erased. But it's there in the history to be incorporated. Markalexander100 09:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Is there any objection to the following addition? This would put the entry within Wikipedia's existing hierarchy of administrative subdivisions of both countries. --Reuben

"Korea classifies the island administratively as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province, while Japan regards it as within Goka Village, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture."

Fact correction

Army enforcement from ROK is not dated from 1953 summer but 1953 January 12 - it's both mentioned in Japanese and Korean Wikipedia. It's not correct to say the enforcement is after Japanese guys set up the territorial sign on the Rocks.

In addition, Liancourt Rocks is not yet declared as a national park but is negotiating with the residents, along with Ulleung-do. Government of ROK did declared the Rocks as a natural monument in 2002, so I corrected the article accordingly.

--PuzzletChung 01:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with the date correction (although I've edited your language a bit), but please provide a source for the "328 damaged" claim -- the number seems quite high. For time being I've placed the mortar sinking back in. Jpatokal 07:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's claimed in ja:竹島 (島根県):
李承晩ライン廃止までの抑留者数・拿捕された船の数および死傷者数
  • 抑留者数：3929人
  • 拿捕された船の数：328隻
  • 死傷者数：44人
But I don't exactly know where the stats have come from. --PuzzletChung 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions and requests

Where does the name Liancourt come from? It doesn't seem to be either Japanese or Korean.

"The common English name, Liancourt Rocks, was given by a French whaling ship in 1849." Jpatokal 04:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to see a map showing the location of the Liancourt Rocks relative to Japan and Korea, and possibly showing the change in the sea boundaries that claims to this islet would cause.

So would I, but first we need to find a GFDL-happy cartographer... Jpatokal 04:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "According to Japanese records, the islands, then known as Matsushima, were granted to the Ooya and Murakawa families of Hoki province (modern Tottori) by the Tokugawa Shogunate in the 1650s. The common English name, Liancourt Rocks, was given by a French whaling ship in 1849.

After a request by a Japanese fisherman, on February 22, 1905 the islands under the name Takeshima were proclaimed a part of Shimane prefecture in Japan under the doctrine of terra nullius. During World War II, the island was used as a naval base by the Imperial Japanese Navy."

What doesn't make sense here is the fact that if the islands were, as according to Japanese records, given to the Ooya and Murakawa families in the 1650s, the 1905 incorporation of the islets by Japan as a "terrs nullius" would be void, as the islets already had an owner. On the other hand, if the islets were indeed incorporated as a true "terra nullius" in 1905, the 17th century records from Japan were either forged or incorrect. That's a major flaw in the Japanese argument, that is. (Anon)

many historians see them as unreliable due to their clear misunderstanding of Korean claims and evidence, as well as the close personal bonds American ambassadors to Japan had at the time Which historians? Is this meant to mean that the account is unreliable, rather than that the US position was ill-founded? If so, why? Personal bonds with whom? Evidence? Mark1 08:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An answer to your question (From the site "Dispute Over Dokdo(Korean view)", which is in the links section of this article)
"Unfortunately for Korea, the American authorities who made the decisions to exclude Japanese sovereignty over Dokdo at the beginning of the occupation (the SCAP Headquarters Government Section), were not the same Americans involved in drafting the territorial sovereignty provisions in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Instead, American judgements on these issues were largely governed by those in the Diplomatic Section of SCAP, led by a great American friend of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, William Sebald. As Acting Political Advisor in Japan (essentially General Mac Arthur´s Foreign Minister), Sebald´s long involvement in Japan and strong personal connections with Japanese officials influenced his opinions towards the ownership of Dokdo, evident in his communications to the US State Department. In the end, however, the ownership of Dokdo was considered too contentious to handle, and it was left out of the final draft of the peace treaty. Thus, the failure of the San Francisco Peace Treaty to resolve the legal ownership of Dokdo is a major reason why the rivalry over the island continues between Japan and Korea." Samurai91

That doesn't really help: the pro-Japanese memoranda can't be unreliable because a different person was also pro-Japanese. Mark1 05:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The diplomats at the San Francisco Peace Treaty assumed that Dokdo was included with Ulleungdo. Solert

Added the CIA map of Japan which shows the location of the rocks. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Diplomats from what countries assumed that? I recall that Hussein assumed at a conference that US wouldn't help Kuwait and that led to the invasion. An assumption is not a credible claim in politics unless backed up with a written proof. Revth 06:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a peaceful edit

<!--

This article is controversial; please discuss on Talk page before making any
changes. Any significant changes made without discussion will be reverted.

-->

just cleaning-up the infobox; i included the map in the table. DON'T SHOOT!

— Davenbelle 09:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Map images

Regarding thumb|A 220 year-old Japanese map clearly displaying the Liancourt Rocks as part of Korea, in the interest of fairness a map showing the Liancourt Rocks as a part of Japan should also be included. Jpatokal 02:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that that map even shows the Liancourt Rocks! If anything, the circled island looks more like Ulleungdo, a Korean island that is not currently disputed. Reuben 05:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The island was considered so small back then that most people viewed it as an "appendage" of Ulleungdo. If you have noticed, the most southern Korean island of Marado, which is as small as Dokdo, is not seen on the 19th century Korean maps.

Finger-cutting incident

On Sunday March 13 a pronouncement by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan triggered a demonstration in Seoul in front of the Japanese embassy in which two female Korean demonstrators cut off their fingers in protest, and which forced Japanese Ambassador Toshiyuki Takano to return to Tokyo to explain the situation to Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda.

Koizumi Pronouncement

What pronouncement? Removed until some background is provided. And again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this sort of thing belongs in Wikinews... Jpatokal 11:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should a war be triggered by this, the demonstration may prove to be a pivotal event, and should be noted early on. The Koizumi pronouncement has been cited ad nauseum in today's Korean newspapers. One assumes that Jpatokal if he is an asian expert knows asian languages.
You're not writing Wikipedia for me (or yourself), you're writing it for everybody. So explain the incident.
Cited here:

"The so called "Internet War" was touched off when Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro stimulated anger among Korean people by saying that Dokdo belongs to Japan."

And once again here:

"As for criticism that Takano himself ignited South Korea's protests, Koizumi defended the diplomat, saying, "The conflict has existed for some time and everyone has known of the conflict in which South Korea says Japan's territory is South Korea's," Kyodo reported."

There are countless other references by googling Koizumi + the alleged Japanese name for the island. References exist in a larger plurality in the Japanese press (Japanese readers, please add these references.)

Mr. Koizumi is now on record at least three times for encouraging what is becoming a diplomatic crisis.

That's not a cite. Where are the exact words that Koizumi spoke, either in Japanese or a direct translation to English?
Amb. Takano said, and this is a cite, that the islands are "historically and legally part of Japan's territory". [4] Find me something like this for Koizumi. Jpatokal 05:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Parallel Discussed

That said, I think having a war triggered by this is a leedle exaggerated... Jpatokal 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Much the same was said over the Falklands, Aceh, and a slightly larger island dispute currently before the fore - Taiwan. The land itself is not as important as the fishing grounds and potential oil reserves as well as the strategic chokehold these islands have on the nearby sealanes. The Kuril islands are a similar problem as Japan needs all these resources for the future urgently.
Latest images on Korean demonstrations on the island - suggest Falklands scenario may have some credibility if the Koreans are provoked over this national sovereignty issue.

Worth looking at for great visuals on the island and overhead view, as well as the scale of the island.

This won't be a Falkland Islands unless South Korea start something like sinking of merchant vessels destined for Japan. South Koreans don't know, but Japan has no law to declare a war and there is a constitutional argument on whether under the current constitution, Japanese government can declare a war at all. Until there is a movement in Japan to make laws to actually make it legal to declare a war, South Koreans can burn all Japanese flags and dolls without fear. South Koreans always believe what they think is what Japanese will do and not what Japanese can actually do. It is, more commonly called, jumping at one's own shadow.
South Korean wouldn't believe this, of course, but Liancourt Rocks has no strategic values to Japan. It is not near any commercial sealanes nor can any resources be unreplaceable. The northern territories issue with USSR was different. For Russians, it was not only about not letting go of their lands but about protecting their harbor and submarines from American submarines as well. Revth 15:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dokdo Loctator

Dokdo is located 89.493km south-east to Uleungdo, 267km away from Pohang, 151km away from the truce line, and 160km away from the Japanese island Oki.

Dokdo is located 89.493km south-east to Uleungdo, 267km away from Pohang, 151km away from the truce line, and 160km away from the Japanese island Oki. The latitude of Dokdo is between 131˚52'07"degrees north and its longitude is between 37˚14'12"degrees east. The island can be seen from Uleungdo but not from Oki island in Japan.

The shortest distance to Dokdo is 220.354 kilometers from Jukbyeon, Uljin county of North Gyeonsang province, and Dokdo is the far east Korean territory. The address of Dokdo is 1-37 mountains, Dokdo-ri, Uleung-eup, Uleung county, North Gyeongsang province which has been officially reconfirmed since April 7, 2000.

The gross area of Dokdo is about 186,121㎡( Dongdo covers an area of 64,779 ㎡; Seodo, 95,444.5㎡; attached islands to Dokdo, 15,907.5㎡), and the number of the attached islands is 33. Dokdo is a state demesne and under control of the Department of the Ocean and Fisheries.

(http://old.dokdo.go.kr/english/html/territory/info_district.html)

On "Imperial"

>According to Imperial Korean records, Samguk Sagi This is historically incorrect as except for brief period in 19th century, no nation in Korean Peninsula was ever an empire. In all Chinese, Japanese, and Korean records, Korea have had kingdoms but not an empire. This is like claiming that there was "Emperor Arthur" in UK because British Empire existed at later time. Revth 14:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. Though that was only a short time, Korea declared the empire between Oct 12th, 1897 and Aug 29th 1910. See Korean Empire Gene H Park 12:23 March 24th 2005 (UTC)

On 1877 Statement by Japanese Government

First of all, current translation is wrong:

The actual statement is: "Takeshima and one another island, after the discussion with Korean Government triggered by Koreans landing on the islands in 1692, has been declared to have no relation with Japan." (translated from the actual statement at http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/home-ministry.jpg)

The 1692 dispute was over Ullung Islands (and until the end of 19 century, Takeshima was the Japanese name for Ullung Islands).

It is inappropriate to introduce the statement here and I propose it either be removed or thoroughly rewritten. Any ideas?

Links

I would like to add more links (Information & news related):

http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/index.html

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050321/4/1y6sb.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=593593

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/24/eng20050324_178043.html

No intention for dispute, but provide information about condition of the islands, but we will classify further about the links of which sub-category they belong to, within the external links category. Isn't that all right?

What's wrong with adding links hosted by Koreans? It does not necessarily mean siding with Korea's POV at all.

Mr Tan, 13:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For those who haven't noticed, I've added a few sentences on America's stance toward the islets, this time on the Korean side. This should smooth out the imbalance between the Korean and Japanese arguments concerning American support. Leonhart

The news articles don't really belong here. This is an encyclopedia; try Wikinews instead. Jpatokal 17:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dokdo is Korea Territory (PDF, Historically Record)

http://cafeimgs.naver.com/img/event/dokdo/dokdoinkorea_english.PDF Dokdo is Korea Territory (PDF, Historically Record)

This document is true to real history. Japan government must give up the imperialistic invasion with the situation of the moment.(Russo-Japanese Wars in 1905 and Korean Conflict in 1950) Korean and Korean government don't doubt the fact that Dokdo is Korean territory.

Japanese! Please read the linked document. Please! Please! Please don't sacrifice yourself for imperialistic zombies.

Rather an imperialistic zombie than an illiterate one. Can you read? Do you understand what exactly 4 links means? Jpatokal 09:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rather an illiterate one than an imperialistic zombie. Not all of illiterates kill people, but all of imperialistic zombies kill people. Anyway, I'm sorry for my poor english.

External links

News websites is accepted in wikipedia, and you may follow this link for example, Paul Schäfer, and there are links concerning news about him. Mr Tan, 13:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, they generally aren't. I quote Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base point 5: News reports. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that)..
Also, regarding the external links, I think the obvious ones for the Korean side are www.dokdo.go.kr and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs position page. How much more official can you get? And why should some random Geocities page displace these? Jpatokal 14:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Samsuk Sagi, part 2

The quote from Samsuk Sagi is excellent, but I think we need to sort this out on the talk page first:

However, Samguk Sagi only mentions an island state of Usan-guk, which is also known as an island of Ulleung-do, not two islets of Ulleung-do and Usan-do: 于山国征服, 歳以土宜為貢, 于山国, 在溟州東海島, 或名鬱陵島, 地方一百里, 恃嶮不服, 伊喰異斯夫, 為何琵羅州軍主, 謂于山人愚悍, 難以威来, 可以計服, 乃多造木偶師子, 分載戦船, 抵其国海岸, 誑告曰, 汝若不服, 則放此猛獣踏殺之, 国人恐懼則降. The hanja "do" (島) refers to island, whereas "guk" (国) refers to state/nation.

Could somebody provide an exact word-by-word translation? According to Korea, which part of this references the Liancourt Rocks?

Also in Korean maps of the period such as 八道總圖 (팔도총도, 1530), Usan-do is situated to the west of Ulleung-do. This is contrary to the current location of the Liancourt Rocks.

And this makes no sense if there is no "Usan-do", so I'll leave it out for now. Jpatokal 03:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi has Ulleung-do and Usan-guk, where Usan-guk is written as a state on the island of Ulleung-do. Koreans claim that Usan-guk refers to Usan-do, which is today's Dok-do according to them.
The map 八道總圖 has Usan-do and Ulleung-do, two islands, and no mention of the state of Usan-guk on the latter. Hermeneus 04:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By my humble translation, "于山國 在溟州正東海島 或名鬱陵島 地方一百里" literally means "Usan-guk is located on the island on the sea right the east from Myeongju, namely Ulleung-do, ranging one hundred lis"(about 40 kilometers or 25 miles). "国" is a kanji and "國" is prefered in Korean hanja -- and so is the record.

The good reference for Usan-do would be Jiriji(地理志; Geographical Record) from Sejong Sillok(世宗實錄; Chronicle of King Sejong) written in 1432, which says "Usan-do and Ulleung-do, located on the sea east from the [Uljin] Prefecture, are not that far each other so that under a clear weather an island comes into view [from another]." ("于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見") Jiriji then describes the history around the islands, where it mentions about Usan-guk.

Other than Liancourt Rocks, the farthest island around Ulleung-do is Juk-do(竹島; not to be confused with Takeshima - hanja is the same by coincidence). [5] [6] [7] Juk-do is 4 km east from the main island, and is so close that it doesn't have to be "clear" to look at the island. On the other hand, only under the fair weather Liancourt Rocks can be seen from Ulleung-do, and vice versa.

--Puzzlet Chung 05:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Do you want to write this up in the article? I'd do it myself but obviously you're more familiar with the issue. Jpatokal 09:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protection (March 29, 2005)

  • Please stop removing contents without stating valid explanations in summary or discussion. If you would like to contest the legitimacy of an existing content, then state so with reliable source to back up your contestation.
  • Please provide citations of primary sources (such as the name of historical documents) for the contents you add wherever possible, esp. when the new contents are to replace the existing ones.
  • Stick to stating objective facts only, and try not to make a political judgement as to how those facts support the political claim of either side, Korean or Japanese. Leave the judgement to readers. Hermeneus 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the edits by 218.48.41.160

"However, modern historians question this claim of management, since it contradicts the validity of the 1905 Japance incorporation of the Liancort Rocks under the doctrine of terra nullius (ownerless land)."

The section under which the above is written is not one to examine the consistency of the claim of the Japanese government today. This is a section to state the historical facts relevant to the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. Move the criticism to a more appropriately titled section.

"Strangely enough, other Japanese maps of the same period often do not include...."

The original proponent of this criticism is Professor Kim Mun-Gi, who is already mentioned in earlier editions in more details than this.

"According to Historical Geography of Great Japan..."

Again, the original proponent of this criticism is Park Young-Sik, who also is already mentioned in earlier editions in more details than this.

"On October 25th, 1900, the Korean royal government, after..."

Original description is much more detailed on this incident, with link to the image of the actual document of the Imperial Ordinance. Hermeneus 14:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what really happened in 1693?

could someone provide sources about this changing story about Ahn Yang-bok (安龍福) in 1693? It seems there exist two different stories involving seemingly an actual event. Fact checking on this one should be relatively easier than anything on Liancourt Rocks. "On April 17th, 1693, two Korean fishermen, Ahn Yang-bok (安龍福) and 朴於屯, were captured ..." AND "In 1693, a Korean naval officer by the name of Ahn Yang-bok attempted to drive off Japanese fishermen ..." [i'm totally new to this wikipedia so i apologize if i didn't follow certain obvious rules.]

It seems that there are two sides of the story, one based on Korean records and the other on Japanese records. I'd suggest that whatever done on the Korean (Chosun) part should be written according to Korean records, and the Japanese part should be written according to Japanese (Tokugawa Shogunate) record. Then put them together. Hermeneus 01:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Korean version?: In 1693, a Korean naval officer by the name of Ahn Yang-bok attempted to drive off Japanese fishermen from Ulleung Island, causing a scuffle and Ahn being kidnapped to Japan. Upon arrival at Japan, Ahn protested to the regional governer of the port he was taken to, claiming vehemently that the Liancourt Rocks and Ulleung Island were part of Korean territory. The governer yielded to his demands, drawing up a document that verified the status of the two islands as Korean. However, as he was being returned to Japan, Ahn was kidnapped again, this time by the governer of Tsushima Island, who planned to use Ahn and gain control of the Liancort Rocks and Ullueng Island. The Tokuwaga Shogunate immediately intervened, ordering Tsushima's governer to return Ahn to Korea. The governer eventually conceded to the shogun's commands, only stopping to take the verification document Ahn still held. Two years later, in 1697, Ahn sailed to Ulleung Island and the Liancourt Rocks again, this time expel the Japanese who had settled there in his absence and to chase them all the way back to their homeland. Once again in Japan, Ahn had the Tokuwaga shogunate create a new verification document for Korea, sealing the fact that Ulleung Island and the Liancourt Rocks were Korean islands, not Japanese.
Japanese version?: On April 17th, 1693, two Korean fishermen, Ahn Yang-bok (安龍福) and 朴於屯, were captured by the fishermen of the Ōya family and brought back to Japan. Tottori province reported the incident to the Tokugawa shogunate, and the shogunate through Tsushima-han (対馬藩) told the Yi Chosun dynasty (Korea) to tighten the control of Korean transgressors. Nanakajo Hento-sho (七箇条返答書) for example alleges that Koreans without permission used the Japanese facilities and stole their fishing equipment. In 1694, when the issue of the attribution of Ulleung-do was raised, the Yi Chosun dynasty told the shogunate to back off from Ulleung-do, because Ulleung-do could be seen from the Korean Peninsula as documented in 東國輿地勝覧. With this the Tokugawa shogunate prohibited the vessels of Tottori-han from going to Ulleung-do. Some Korean scholars claim that the the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Matsushima) also was included among the prohibited islands; however, there was no mention of the Liancourt Rocks in the actual injunction from the shogunate. In fact the Tokugawa shogunate did not prohibit passage to the Liancourt Rocks.

Well, to be honest, I really think the Korean version is closer to the truth. As I wrote in the Korean story, Ahn Yang-bok was kidnapped to Japan after he tried to chase off Japanese fishermen who were residing on Ulleung-do and the Lianocurt Rocks illegally. How on earth the Japanese got the idea that Ahn was using Japanese faclities is beyond my comprehension, since the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (조선왕조실록) states exactly the contrary. Furthermore, it is a historically proven fact that the Tokuwaga Shogunate prohibited travel to the Liancourt Rocks, since the annals cite Ahn's chasing of Japanese fishermen from Ulleung-do, and then their expulsion from the Lianocurt Rocks the very next day. - Leonhart

The two versions don't necessarily contradict each other entirely if not partially.
The incident of stolen fishing equipment is not directly related to Ahn Yang-bok himself. It is to show a reason why the fishermen of the Ohya family petitioned to the Shogunate to tighten the control of the Korean transgressors. The incident was only an example of troubles the fishermen of the Ohya family were having back then. Ahn Yang-bok himself was captured because he was catching abalones on Ulleung-do, a territory that the Ohya family considered theirs and so being transgressed. Ahn was thus considered a part of the larger problem of Korean transgressors (cf. 竹島渡海由来記抜書書).
As for the Tokuwaga Shogunate prohibiting travel to the Liancourt Rocks, it is not a historical fact. What the Shogunate prohibited was travel to Ulleung-do, not the Liancourt Rocks (a.k.a. Matsushima back then). The name of Matsushima doesn't appear on the document of the injunction.Hermeneus 09:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected 3 Apr 2005

There has been no discussion on this talk page in over three days, so I've removed the page protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dokdo vs Takeshima Removal

Clearly the last section recently added violates NVP. There may be a point buried within it that the name Takeshima is ambiguous in certain contexts. Easier to remove the section totally.

About Dokdo

Don't revert the Geography; it needs cleanup and the georaphy name is better.

Mr Tan 20:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Please do not revert the External Links, as I feel that we should not restrict ourselves to equality just because of the dispute. However, I feel that we should add more links, irrespective of Korean or Japanese, rather for the sake of human knowledge, as wikipedia is a knowledge, not dispute center.

Also, the link

Mr Tan 12:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category

I remove the category Islands of Japan because:

  • Dokdo is currently under Korean control, although Japan lay claim to it. (Compare with (Pedra Branca and Tsushima Islands) However, I will not remove it from the disputed territory, as it is indeed disputed. The Islands of Japan category should only be put back up only when Japan lay control to the islands.
  • If there is significant objections, I will not mind having it back, but if any of you agrees or disagrees, please vote here if you wish to.

Mr Tan 14:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False map

Japan_korea_physical_map_2.png Location of Takeshima in this image is false. Takeshima is not close to Ulleungdo that much. This map would be help.(Commonsenses 14:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Indeed, the current map looks like one that somebody made by hand for the article, and it's clearly got Tokdo in the wrong place. Your map has Tokdo / Takeshima in the right place, but the coastline of South Korea appears to be wrong for latitudes north of Ulleungdo. Reuben 07:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_1&oldid=749853733"