Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Talk:Dokdo

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 09:00, 10 October 2008 by Jpatokal (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

copied from User talk:Jpatokal

In addition, I have a responsibility to myself and to the readers when it comes to accuracy. The Japanese have no record of recognizing the islands as theirs nor are there any record of the Japanese legitamitely fishing there before the 19th century. Whereas Korea has records dating to the beginning of the 6th. Also, the island was not "called" Takeshima before 1905. That is when they named it thus. And finally, the island was NOT off-limits to the public there was just more paper work involved. If you're going to make edits, then the focus should be on accuracy moreso than length. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paula (talkcontribs)
The 1696 Murakami Document was about fishing rights around Dokdo and Ulleungdo, so yes, the Japanese have been fishing there for a long time. And the article simply states that the islands' name in Japanese is Takeshima right now, just like its name in Korean is Dokdo right now. And according to the official history, the Koreans have also changed the name repeatedly (Usando, Seokdo, Dokseom, etc).
I've corrected the bit about the islands being off-limits.
Happy now? Jpatokal 01:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
No but give me a sec.
On the subject of the Murakami document, what you so conveniently fail to mention is, or maybe you just don't know, that exact document stated by a Japanese court no less that Ulleungdo and Dokdo was the property of Korea. So I reiterate, no legal claim. The original fishing dispute was focused over Ulleungdo even not Dokdo. The Tokugawa Shogunate were demanding the prohibition of Korean fishermen to Ulleungdo, but obviously they were unsuccessful in acquiring sovereignty.
At that time Takeshima was the name of what is now known as Ulleungdo. Then, Liancourt Rock was considered Matsushima. Your sentence implied that name had a longer history than it did. The name was changed only after the Japanese decided the island was theirs. That's why good grammar matters. And by the way, Koreans originally called the island 'Gajido' too.
Thanks for trying though:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paula (talkcontribs)
You're writing squarely from a Korean POV. First, it is not at all clear that Usan-do is Dokdo. Second, obviously there have been Japanese fishing around Dokdo for a very long time -- Ulleungdo is even further away from Japan than Dokdo, and if the Japanese were fishing around Ulleungdo in 1696, they were surely fishing Dokdo as well. Jpatokal 11:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
You ignore written documents but accuse me of being biased? Please do some research instead of making conclusions based on assumptions. Show me one document stating Gajido, Matsushima, Liancourt Rocks or some other name of the island as being part of Japan before the 17th century. Then let's see who has a partial point of view. If you look at any neutral information on Dokdo, they will ALL agree that history is on Korea's side whichever way you look at it. Though Globalsecurity.com, an American site, completely forgoes any mention of the history behind Dokdo before the 17thC, they attest to the fact that Japan's renewed claims to Dokdo only surfaced once they discovered valuable fuel deposits around the island. Even Wikipedia, where the subject is presently being disputed does not challenge the fact that the island was recorded as part of Korean territory from ancient times. To boot, during the Murakami document period Japanese maps referred to Dokdo being Korea's.
Fact: Korea has documents with "Dokdo" as being part of Korea
Fact: Japan has documents with "Dokdo" as being part of Korea
Fact: Korea has no documents that include "Dokdo" into Japanese territory
WTF... this isn't Wikipedia with its endless nationalistic debating societies. Jani's text is fine and contains nothing that can reasonably be considered inaccurate. Frankly if it was up to me we'd redirect this page to Antarctica and lock it forever. -- Colin 01:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
...and we call the dispute between Korea and Japan, silly. I'm very glad you feel that "Jani" is it? has not written anything considered inaccurate, Colin. Do you think perhaps if others who were sympathetic to me too and knew about this article might, maybe feel differently? Consequently find that the original author of the article was just as reasonable? Trust me. Once it gets personal it can get dirty fast. It was not I who changed the whole article of the original text which was based on impartial sources. Nothing I wrote was a point of dispute even by the Japanese. That's why they are called facts. What was so provoking Colin? That I told "Jani" to check his facts before he contradicted someone who has? Remember there was no issue before "Jani" unilaterally rewrote the article when I was willing to compromise. I'm so glad we're all being so objective:).Paula 04:56, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll quote Wikipedia:

Korean claims are partly based on references to a Korean island called Usan-do (우산, 于山島/亐山島) in various historical records, geographies, maps, and encyclopedia such as Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty, Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam, and Dongguk munhon bigo. According to the Korean view, these refer to today's Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese views variously argue that they refer to either Juksoe (竹嶼; Korean Jukdo or Dae'soem), Kwanumdo (觀音島, 島項; Korean Seommok, G'aksae), Ulleungdo, or a non-existent island.

So yes, the meaning of Usan-do is very much disputed, and no, you cannot convince me that they're not disputed. Wikitravel doesn't have a neutral point of view, because the traveller comes first, and all the traveller needs to know is that Dokdo is under Korean rule and that the Japanese and Koreans are still squabbling about it. Jpatokal 08:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what part of your latest comment had something new?

I know you've been getting your information from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious since you've been referring to them this whole time. Do you not realize that Dokdo on Wikipedia is being disputed as well? Did you not see that big yellow sign on the article's page? Have you maybe thought about going to other sources? Because I did.

"Wikitravel doesn't have a neutral point of view." Is this a type-o Jani? or not? cuz I thought that's what we were fighting about...being neutral with the information. Isn't being fair and honest one of the goals of Wikitravel? or am I wrong about this too?
And you will not convince me that I am being biased. I am telling you there are no references to any island that is believed to be Liancourt Rocks as being part of Japan in any documents before the 1600s and you have yet to prove otherwise.
Although there has been documents calling Liancourt Usan-do, I have never referred to Usan-do as being Liancourt Rocks because that naming is disputed. The historical documents refer to Liancourt Rocks as "part of Usanguk," the kingdom of Usan, which was Ulleungdo.

One more time. (This is really not that difficult.)

Some Koreans are convinced that the Rocks are Korean. Some Japanese are convinced that the Rocks are Japanese. Correct? Do you agree that yes, there are some Japanese who think the Rocks are Japanese?

Now, you think that the Japanese are "wrong", and have lots of historical arguments to say why. Well, guess what, those Japanese think that you are wrong, and have lots of historical arguments to say why.

So who is "more right"? Well, guess what, it doesn't matter to the traveler. All we need to do is state that the islands are under Korean control (fact), and that they're disputed (fact). End of story! You want to argue about 400-year-old documents, go do it on Wikipedia. Jpatokal 13:35, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

The current text has three paragraphs:
A political hot spot, this speck of an island has a complicated and contentious history ...
After World War II, the San Francisco Peace Treaty ...
For a while now there has been a heated debate between Korea and Japan, with both staking claim to the island. ...

Apparently for you, it's a downright struggle.

See, that's the difference with you and me. I don't assume anyone's right or wrong. I don't invent things and say that they're fact. If you're done with your tantrum, maybe you can see clearly enough to be objective.

As a matter of fact, the Japanese do agree they have NO documents stating that whatever those islands near Usan-guk are or were belonged to the Japanese. Cuz if they didn't agree then they would have produced them, wouldn't they? Something you should look into.

Obviously you care about who's right very very much. And yet the laughable thing is you have showed me absolutely no evidence to back up your statements. Instead, you've just been belligerent and caustic. "A true testament to a man's who's drowning," eh?

Korean and Japanese fisherman have fished in nearby waters since time immemorial, and references to a Korean island that may or may not be Dokdo have been documented in historical records since the 6th century Oh yeah? show me where they say that.

It takes two to argue. So if you're gonna tell someone to take a flying leap, then...after you my dear.Paula 04:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

It is fine as is, though as I see it, you could replace those three paragraphs with "Korea has controlled the islands since the end of World War II, but Japan still asserts a claim". That's all we need in a travel guide. Pashley 00:57, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Paula, my friend, you keep trying to make this personal. It's not: I don't know you, I'm not Korean, I'm not Japanese, I don't really give a shit. I just want travelers reading the guide to understand why Japanese and Koreans have different views of the issue.
Now, please answer my previous question: Some Koreans are convinced that the Rocks are Korean. Some Japanese are convinced that the Rocks are Japanese. Correct? Do you agree that yes, there are some Japanese who think the Rocks are Japanese? Jpatokal 04:56, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages