Talk:Dokdo (Takeshima)/Archive 1

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
Debate Guide [?]


Take a look at CZ Talk:Naming Conventions#naming is separate from neutrality, only based on common use? - the article title name was decided with this discussion. (Chunbum Park 09:18, 9 May 2008 (CDT))

good job. Richard Jensen 14:18, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
thank you. (Chunbum Park 14:23, 10 May 2008 (CDT))

note on propaganda sounding sources

We'll use them only for statistics (i.e. coordinates, rainfall, Japanese names, Korean names). Contents that advocate for Japanese or Korean side should be used only to detail the arguments that each side is making. (Chunbum Park 14:13, 26 May 2008 (CDT))

i think your images are fine

I think your images are fine. I am not an expert but I would definitely but also upset if someone protested their validity. I don't see how they can be copy-righted if you drew them yourself. Tom Kelly 22:28, 28 May 2008 (CDT)

thank you ! : ) especially for maps, I think "referencing" is fine. I remember how map publishers research on previously published maps to make new editions but they're not copyrighted & at the same time they're "derivative work"s. (Chunbum Park 09:27, 29 May 2008 (CDT))

for ppl @ wikipedia

Kajimura, Hideki. "The Question of Takeshima/Tokdo," Korea Observer, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Autumn 1997), pp. 423-475

To presume that the existence of Takeshima ~ Tokdo was not known to those people who lived and engaged in farming on Ullungdo for several hundred years is caused by a prejudice regarding Koreans as half-witted.

...the Japanese government confirmed Takeshima/Ullungdo as Korean's inherent territory in 1696, and took the measure of prohibiting completely Japanese from making voyage there.

The word "voyage" (or crossing sea) means voyage to a foreign country (since a permit is not needed for going to a domestic island), and the fact that the Japanese/government issued a permit of voyage to Matsushima means that the Japanese government did not regard it as a Japanese territory...

During the heated anti-foreign campaign between 1952 and 1954 the notion that "Takeshima ~ Tokdo is Japan's inherent territory penetrated into the Japanese for the first time. This campaign was also utilized clearly as a means to push for Japan's military rearmament.

Van Dyke, Jon. "Who Owns Tok-Do/Takeshima? Should These Islets Affect the Maritime Boundary Between Japan and Korea?," Korea-America Joint Marine Policy Research Center, the University of Rhode Island, October 8, 2004.

Korea's claim to sovereignty over the islets is thus substantially stronger than that of Japan...

Fern, Sean. "Tokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan-Korea Island Dispute," Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Winter 2005) pp. 78-89.

This paper sets out to demonstrate why South Korea has a stronger claim to the Liancourt Rocks...

East Asia’s Troubled Waters – Part II - an article from the Yale Global Online, published on 2006-04-27.

Japan asserted its legal claim then, even though, based on the International Crisis Group’s review of historical records, Korea had a stronger claim.

I can understand that many people will doubt if my work here can be unbiased and accurate simply because I am a South Korean. However, I dare anyone to try to find a non-government, professional thesis or article that argues for the Japanese side. There is none. That is why I am so confident with what I write here. (Chunbum Park 08:46, 17 July 2008 (CDT))

Now, as for the article title (already decided here), there can be 2 frameworks that can be used - common use/commonality and international law. However, most English speakers do not know about the dispute at all, and "Liancourt Rocks" is not used exclusively in English - both "Takeshima" and "Dokdo" are usually included by the same literature as well. Then, if there is no established common use, we have to use the official name or the native name of the islands. Well we have 2 so we have to choose 1. How? International law. (Chunbum Park 22:00, 8 July 2008 (CDT))

Climate and Ecology

Looking at the line that reads, "The study also found in Dokdo, 8 of the species that are endangered in Korea,[1] including the falcon, the Siberian honey buzzard, the owl, the black kite, the Japanese murrelet, and the swan." I find this a bit vague. The terms falcon, owl and swan are very general. Can we get more precise names for these birds. Derek Harkness 10:24, 18 July 2008 (CDT)

Hello, thank you for taking a look at the article. This is the cited link that provides that list.

In the U.S., I'm sure there are at least several species of owls or falcons (i.e. black bear, brown bear), so people want specific scientific names in the endangered list.

In South Korea, I don't think there's much variety because people ate them all (maybe not). But I will try to find what you are asking for. (Chunbum Park 10:53, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

The falcon seems to be peregrine falcon. here ("northern Asia") & wikipedia korea's entry "매" links to "peregrine falcon" & not "falcon" in general. (Chunbum Park 11:10, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

Found it. Peregrine falcon. I added it. (Chunbum Park 11:29, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

Sorry but I can't find out which owl's endangered. There are about 4 types of owls that live in South Korea. I guess owls don't taste all that good. (Chunbum Park 12:28, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
here it says "Chinese Scops owl" and "owl".... but doesn't say which owl is endangered. (Chunbum Park 12:31, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

It's actually Red-footed Falcon. see here. (Chunbum Park 12:36, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

approval discussion/comments

I made a few minor adjustments to wording which should probably be included in the approved version. The only notable change was that I pointed the link that used to be to an unwritten article titled "Arguments of the territorial dispute over Dokdo" to the debate guide subpage. I think that is a good use of the debate guide.

I wonder if the conclusion section shouldn't be rewritten somewhat before approval. It seems rather speculative and argumentative as it now stands. --Joe Quick 11:01, 18 July 2008 (CDT)

"guide" is perfectly fine. I had hard time writing the conclusion because I don't really know how to conclude it, actually. The speculative tone was emulated off of Sean Fern's article (read the last part). If you think all the speculation is a bit risky or unencyclopedic, you can edit it in any way you want or direct me to a proper model. (Chunbum Park 11:12, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
By the way, is the article neutral enough? Any confidence? (Chunbum Park 11:13, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
Yes, except for the conclusion, it seems very balanced. I'll have a look at the Fern article and see what I can do with the conclusion. --Joe Quick 11:42, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
Oh, I thought that the speculative and predictive tone of the conclusion was problematic. Do you mean that the conclusion a bit anti-Japanese or a bit provocative? Such tone was adopted by Hideki Kajimura in this article. (Chunbum Park 11:58, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
Ah ha, do you mean "despite South Korea's stronger historical claim and its actual control of the islets"? Sean Fern's article presents it that way. If you see the "for ppl @ wikipedia" section above, I've listed several journal articles or studies that say "South Korea has stronger claim.." I promise that, even if there are many articles that try to stay neutral on subject, you will not find any that supports the Japanese claim. (Chunbum Park 12:18, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
Thank you very much for copy editing & checking for grammar mistakes! (Chunbum Park 12:22, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

Okay, Chubum, have a look at the conclusion now. I made some pretty major changes but I think I was able to maintain the spirit of your original formulation. Do feel free to make further adjustments or revert if I misunderstood the situation. --Joe Quick 12:52, 18 July 2008 (CDT)

In fact, I like yours much better than mine, so I'd like you to make changes based on the problems I point out here.

First, I like how you added the detail about the importance of Dokdo in controlling the fisheries, but it may be misleading because they do already have the joint fishery agreement, regardless of the fact that S. Korea controls the islets)

Thanks! -JQ

Second, As of 1998, fishing boat originating in both countries have been allowed to operate in the other's exclusive economic zone if they obtain permits. was already stated previously, so it might sound a bit repetitive.

Good point. I took it out. -JQ

Third, I put "comprehend...cannot understand" to connect the first & 2nd paragraphs - to make a transition. 1) So, Japanese think it's nothing more than a territorial dispute. 2 a) Then they can't understand why Koreans are so emotional about it. 2 b) And if they believe Dokdo is theirs, and they believe so because of the evidences, shouldn't they be confident about an international trial?

So, I'm saying yours sound a bit abrupt from 1st to 2nd paragraph
I have to think a bit about this one. -JQ

Fourth, point out that its de facto control of the islets lends extra strength to such claims - I don't think you meant to make this mistake, but "de facto control" does not bolster "historical claims" - which "such claims" refer to in the first part of the sentence. So basically, de facto control makes a stronger territorial claim under international law because it is an affirmative action of sovereignty. International law looks at, among many things, how much affirmative action a country has taken in a dispute. (Chunbum Park 13:03, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

Another good point. I'll address it right now. --Joe Quick 13:09, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
One more, actually. The ICJ would probably rule in favor of South Korea, but there is a significant risk that it won't either. So, South Korea won't gain anything if it wins in the trial (b/c it already controls the islets), but it will lose everything if a sporadic ICJ favors Japan. Is there a difference between "there's only the risk that ICJ will rule in Japan's favor" (current) and "there's only the risk that the islets will be lost if ICJ rules in Japan's favor" (previous)? Again, thank you very much.(Chunbum Park 13:13, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
Another - this is last, for real. Sean Fern's article is too hopeful. It was published before all crises concerning the hydrological surveys, postage stamps, textbook, etc. arose. I don't think it's "spirit of compromise". I think it's more like the Cold War - with mutually assured destruction. So, the two countries will compromise in a crisis with huge risks or on a easy matter than can be compromised, but on the hard issues they will not. (Chunbum Park 13:17, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
I guess that's pretty much it. Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 13:24, 18 July 2008 (CDT))
No problem; I'm happy to help. I think I addressed your previous concerns. I'll have a think about the last one too. Don't worry about having many concerns - that's how good work gets written. :-) --Joe Quick 13:26, 18 July 2008 (CDT)

3rd para of Conclusion draft

"The economic value of the islands themselves is small, but their control is a determining factor in the designation of official sovereignty over extensive tracks of fisheries in the Sea of Japan. Therefore, analysts have speculated that the dispute over control of Dokdo will continue to figure prominently in Japan-Korea relations in the future. Nevertheless, a spirit of conciliation has set in and "neither country seems willing to break off relations over a minor territorial dispute."

Ok, sorry, but there are more problems.

I think the main reason for this dispute is not money or fishery but nationalism. Both governments will pursue the dispute for the sake of protecting its territories.

So, dispute will continue not because of fisheries but because there is no way to end it (i.e. ICJ). Because S. Korea controls the islets & Japan doesn't want to risk war, it will remain in this form.

Also, I think conciliation is even more off than compromise. They're not trying to appease each other! "Compromise" on the other hand can mean that even if they dislike each other they're both going to endure some losses to survive.

(Chunbum Park 13:51, 18 July 2008 (CDT))


Done. Complete. Fina est. Kanyo. Keutnatseubnida. (Chunbum Park 15:19, 18 July 2008 (CDT))

Approval process

This article is up for approval today. I see that there are several edits since the date that Richard Jensen placed the template. If we want those included, the version date needs to reflect that change, otherwise I will use the latest version before that approval was made. D. Matt Innis 08:15, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

We'd like those changes to be included. How do we make the version date reflect that change? (Chunbum Park 10:42, 21 July 2008 (CDT))
I see on Richard's talk page that he was okay up to 10:19 July 18 or which leaves these edits to be reviewed. I am sure that Richard is likely to be okay with when he sees them, but there is no hurry. D. Matt Innis 18:01, 21 July 2008 (CDT)

Approved Version 1

Congratualtions and great work Chunbum Park! The discussion for the Approved Version 1 should start below this line. D. Matt Innis 14:45, 22 July 2008 (CDT)

Thank you. : ) (Chunbum Park 11:33, 24 July 2008 (CDT))

laundry warfare

I just can't figure out where to put a paragraph about the laundry troopers. It would have to be a general paragraph about the extent to which the dispute is known outside of Korea & Japan. Should conclusion be made a section of its own rather than being a subsection & would that be the place to add a paragraph? (Chunbum Park 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I think it would be appropriate to create a new section above Conclusions to describe the actions taken by the two sides to win over the international opinions. But I'm not sure what the title of the section should be. "Contest over international opinions" ? (Chunbum Park 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

New edits

These were really nice additions. I planned to include those details in the dispute guide but I've been procrastinating & I haven't even started on the article. (Chunbum Park 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I think that the new paragraph would fit better in the debate guide. We could start writing the debate guide right now. Currently some of the details from the 1st paragraph is repeated in the 2nd paragraph. I actually don't think the 1st paragraph fits with the historical tone of the entire article. (Chunbum Park 02:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
P.S. "appurtenant" was nice use of vocabulary. (Chunbum Park 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Can we have the newer draft version approved? The article may need a few touches in terms of grammar, etc. (Chunbum Park 02:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I will approve the new version. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits! (Chunbum Park 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

Is it possible to delete this article?

Is it possible to delete this article? I would like to have this article deleted. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC))

I don't see why not, given the topic. There is no rule that would lead us to deny this request. John Stephenson (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named enmin