Talk:Liancourt Rocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liancourt Rocks article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Create using the "move procedure"


Contents

[edit] Requested moves to date

  1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
  2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
  3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Rules of Engagement

This article is under article probation following a decision by the arbitration committee. Any user who disrupts this article is liable to an immediate article ban by any Administrator without warning. To avoid running into trouble you are requested to observe the following rules of engagement at all times

  • All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it.
  • Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).
  • No Edit Warring will be accepted under any circumstances and all editors are expected to observe a strict 1RR. This means that if another editor disagrees with your edit the edit may be reverted (see note above) and may not be reinserted unless there is a clear consensus to allow the edit. (This does not apply to obvious vandalism).
  • Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once. The article is simply not going to be renamed to reflect either Japanese or Korean POV. Please accept this.
  • Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
  • Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
  • Tendentious, overlong or nonconstructive repetitive arguing on the talk page is not permitted. Disruptive edits of this kind may be removed by an administrator and persistent offenders are liable to being banned from further contribution to the article.

If you wish to discuss these conditions you should leave a message below or contact an administrator familiar with the history of this article. Currently this includes ?? Fut perf; Spartaz (perhaps) and/or ??????

This version was implemented by Spartaz on January 29, 2008.

[edit] Liancourt in France

{editprotected} As a part of a project to create articles for all communes of France, I have just created Liancourt, Oise. I would like to link to that from this article, for instance {{Redirect|Liancourt|the town in France|Liancourt, Oise}}. Another option could be to move "Liancourt, Oise" to "Liancourt" (currently a redirect to "Liancourt Rocks", also protected) and create a dablink from there to Liancourt Rocks. Markussep Talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good job for creating the French town page. I'd say, since the town is actually "Liancourt", and the rocks are never called "Liancourt" alone but always "Liancourt Rocks", there should be no objection to having the town at the simple title. Let's have a quick check if there are links to it that need changed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
All incoming links to Liancourt already were to the French village, not the islands. I've therefore redirected Liancourt to Liancourt, Oise as requested. If you want to move Liancourt, Oise to Liancourt simple (depends on what the preferred format is for French villages?), give me a call, you'll need an admin for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are no other places with the same name, the preferred format is the simple name, without the department. Could you move it there? I'll add a dablink later. Thanks. Markussep Talk 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. I don't actually see much of a need for a dablink on either side, personally. It doesn't seem to have ever been a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! You're probably right, if people don't know whether they're rocks, islets or islands they can search for Liancourt anyway. I'll leave it then. Markussep Talk 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dokdo from KPOV

Please visit the site for more evidence of that Korea does in fact own soverignty over the islands against Japan's claim from 1905. As for me, if one can disprove the document which also listed it's sources then I'll join the JPOV.

AHeartInSolitude (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)February 27, 2008

whoever you are, please organize your opinion.--Appletrees (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, you're already blocked by admin, Fut. Perf without any legitimate process like ANI, RFCU, or SSP because you left the above note once and look just suspicious? This is out of WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK. --Appletrees (talk) 11:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"New rules of conduct", point 4, in line with ArbCom which enforces those policies. What can I say, except "Fut.Perf. don't fuck around!" :) Orethrius (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima , literally bamboo island) -> Takeshima (たけしま/竹島, Takeshima , literally bamboo island)

The islets are known as Dokdo (or Tokto) (독도/獨島, literally solitary island) in Korean and as Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) in Japanese. The English name Liancourt Rocks is derived from Le Liancourt, the name of the French whaling ship whose crew were the first Europeans to encounter and chart the islets in 1849.

Takeshima (竹島, Takeshima? , literally bamboo island) -> Takeshima (たけしま/竹島, Takeshima , literally bamboo island) Change please Caomengde (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not quite sure ewhat point you are making here. Possible you can explain further? If you check the archives the subject of the article lead has been discussed to death. The name is what the rocks are called in English and we are not going to favour one side or the other in this dispute by favouring one name over the other. Liancort Rocks may not be the idea name for the article but its certainly the most acceptable to everyone and both sets of names have redirects here. Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Caomengde was merely asking to have the Japanese cited also in its Kana form (たけしま) in addition to the Kanji (竹島). Nothing about the article title. Seems unproblematic to me, but I don't know what our conventions are for Japanese names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There was a similar suggestion at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_17#Insertion Suggest that gained no consensus. --Kusunose 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I can't find any specific mentions in the naming conventions but I can tell you it's def not conventional on English wikipedia to annotate Japanese terms with transliterations in hiragana, unless the hiragana form is in common usage in Japanese.Phonemonkey (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
this place just rotted out. Good friend100 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Refrain yourself--Appletrees (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Historical Inaccuracy on This Page

Your article on Liancourt Rocks reads as follows. "..Japan officially incorporated the islands as part of its territory in 1905, shortly before it occupied Korea itself as a protectorate..."


Actually, it should read "...Japan annexed the islands about a year after her military occupied Korea as a protectorate..."


Japanese forces landed in Chemulpo (Incheon) on February 8th 1904. Her soldiers marched into Seoul and after weeks of intimidation Korea signed the Japan~Korea Protocol on Feburary 26th 1904, which "allowed" the Japanese military to appropriate Korean land deemed of military strategic value.


Here is the link to the document, from the 1904 American Foreign Affairs archives. Please see Article IV paragraph two.


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1904&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=437

I will edit this problem later. Thanks Clownface (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, that is one interpretation of the history. However, mainstream interpretation of history is that Korea became a Japanese protectorate in 1905, as mentioned in the article Korea under Japanese rule. (Read "On the road to annexation" section in that article.) For the consistency within Wikipedia, I propose to keep the current form of wording. Or it is also possible to change the contents of the both articles.--Kamuichikap (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit request

Can someone add this as an External Link? http://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/index.html there may be a japanese equivalent, but i don't know what it might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.76.15.52 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)