Talk:Liancourt Rocks and Template:Metallica: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Navbox Musical artist
{{controversial}}
| name = Metallica
{{Article probation}}
| title = [[Metallica]]
{{notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Suggested Rules of Engagement|1=[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks#Liancourt Rocks article probation|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
| background = group_or_band
| above = {{nowrap begin}}'''[[James Hetfield]]'''{{·wrap}} '''[[Kirk Hammett]]'''{{·wrap}} '''[[Robert Trujillo]]'''{{·wrap}} '''[[Lars Ulrich]]'''<br />[[Cliff Burton]]{{·wrap}} [[Jason Newsted]] <!-- Bob Rock was NOT a member. -->


| group1 = Studio albums
*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.
| list1 = ''[[Kill 'Em All]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Ride the Lightning]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Master of Puppets]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[…And Justice for All (album)|...And Justice for All]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Metallica (album)|Metallica]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Load (album)|Load]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[ReLoad]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[St. Anger]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Death Magnetic]]''


| group2 = Live albums
*'''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).
| list2 = ''[[Live Shit: Binge & Purge]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[S&M (album)|S&M]]''


| group3 = Extended plays
*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).
| list3 = ''[[The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Some Kind of Monster (EP)|Some Kind of Monster]]''


| group4 = Compilations
*'''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.
| list4 = ''[[Garage Inc.]]''


| group5 = Videos
*'''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.
| list5 = ''[[Cliff 'Em All]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[2 of One]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[A Year and a Half in the Life of Metallica]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Live Shit: Binge & Purge]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Cunning Stunts (Metallica)|Cunning Stunts]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[S&M (album)|S&M]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Classic Albums: Metallica - Metallica]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Some Kind of Monster (film)|Some Kind of Monster]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[The Videos 1989-2004]]''


| group6 = Tributes
*'''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.
| list6 = ''[[Metallic Assault: A Tribute to Metallica|Metallic Assault]]''{{·wrap}} ''[[Metallic Attack: Metallica - The Ultimate Tribute|Metallic Attack]]''


| group7 = Singles
*'''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.
| list7 = "[[Whiplash (song)|Whiplash]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Jump in the Fire]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Seek & Destroy]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Fade to Black (song)|Fade to Black]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Creeping Death]]"{{·wrap}} "[[For Whom the Bell Tolls (Metallica song)|For Whom the Bell Tolls]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Master of Puppets (song)|Master of Puppets]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Battery (song)|Battery]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Welcome Home (Sanitarium)]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Eye of the Beholder (song)|Eye of the Beholder]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Harvester of Sorrow]]"{{·wrap}} "[[…And Justice for All (song)|…And Justice for All]]"{{·wrap}} "[[One (Metallica song)|One]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Enter Sandman]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Don't Tread on Me (Metallica song)|Don't Tread on Me]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Unforgiven (song)|The Unforgiven]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Nothing Else Matters]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Wherever I May Roam]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Sad but True]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Until It Sleeps]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Ain't My Bitch]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Hero of the Day]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Mama Said (Metallica song)|Mama Said]]"{{·wrap}} "[[King Nothing]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Bleeding Me]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Memory Remains]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Unforgiven II]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Fuel (song)|Fuel]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Better than You (Metallica song)|Better than You]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Turn the Page (Bob Seger song)|Turn the Page]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Whiskey in the Jar]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Die, Die My Darling (Metallica song) |Die, Die My Darling]]"{{·wrap}} "[[No Leaf Clover]]"{{·wrap}} "[[I Disappear]]"{{·wrap}} "[[St. Anger (song)|St. Anger]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Frantic (song)|Frantic]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Unnamed Feeling]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Some Kind of Monster (song)|Some Kind of Monster]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Day That Never Comes]]"{{·wrap}} "[[My Apocalypse]]"{{·wrap}} "[[Cyanide (song)|Cyanide]]"{{·wrap}} "[[The Judas Kiss]]"


| group8 = Related articles
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 Nihonjoe.
| list8 = [[Metallica band members|Band members]]{{·wrap}} [[Metallica discography|Discography]]{{·wrap}} [[Metallica demos|Demos]]{{·wrap}} [[Bob Rock]]{{·wrap}} [[Lloyd Grant]]{{·wrap}} [[List of Metallica awards|Awards]]{{·wrap}} [[Megadeth]]{{·wrap}} [[Exodus (band)|Exodus]]{{·wrap}} [[Flotsam and Jetsam (band)|Flotsam and Jetsam]]{{·wrap}} ''[[Guitar Hero: Metallica]]''
</div>


| group9 = [[:Category:Metallica|Categories]]
<small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiancourt_Rocks%2FArchive_17&diff=187764629&oldid=187742732 This version] was implemented by Spartaz on January 29, 2008.</small>
| list9 = [[:Category:Metallica members|Members]]{{·wrap}} [[:Category:Metallica albums|Albums]]{{·wrap}} [[:Category:Metallica songs|Songs]]{{·wrap}} [[:Category:Metallica videos|Videos]]{{·wrap}} [[:Category:Metallica concert tours|Tours]]{{nowrap end}}
}}
}}<noinclude>
{{notice|header=Requested moves to date|A list:
----
# [[Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move]] Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
'''This template is used in hundreds of articles.''' Please think carefully before changing it, and make sure you explain your change in your [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. Any unexplained changes may be reverted.
# [[Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move]] Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
[[Category:Thrash metal musical groups templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
# [[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
[[Category:American heavy metal musical groups templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[[cs:Šablona:Metallica]]
}}
[[it:Template:Metallica]]
{{Talkheader}}
[[de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Metallica]]
{{WikiProjectBanners
[[fi:Malline:Metallica]]
|1={{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High}}
[[fr:Modèle:Metallica]]
|2={{Korean|class=B|importance=top|unstable=yes}}
[[he:תבנית:מטאליקה]]
}}
[[hu:Sablon:Metallica]]
{{reqphoto|in=Japan|in2=South Korea}}
[[no:Mal:Metallica]]
{{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot|small=yes|age=15|dounreplied=yes}}
[[pl:Szablon:Metallica]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
[[pt:Predefinição:Metallica]]
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
[[ru:Шаблон:Metallica]]
|maxarchivesize = 150K
[[simple:Template:Metallica]]
|counter = 19
[[sv:Mall:Metallica]]
|minthreadsleft = 0
[[sk:Šablóna:Metallica]]
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
[[tr:Şablon:Metallica]]
|algo = old(15d)
</noinclude>
|archive = Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}

__TOC__

== Infobox ==

{{Infobox Disputed Islands
| plural = yes
| name = Liancourt Rocks
| image name = Location-of-Liancourt-rocks-en.png
| image caption = Location of the Liancourt Rocks in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) between South Korea and Japan
| image size = 300px
| locator map = Dokdo Map.png
| map_custom = no
| native name =
| native name link =
| other_names = Dokdo, Takeshima
| location = [[Sea of Japan]] (East Sea)
| coordinates = {{coord|37|14|30|N|131|52|0|E|display=inline}}
| archipelago =
| total islands = 90 (37 permanent land)
| major islands = East Islet, West Islet
| area = {{convert|0.18745|km2|acre}}<br/>East Islet: {{convert|0.0733|km2|acre}}<br/>West Islet: {{convert|0.08864|km2|acre}}
| length =
| width =
| coastline =
| highest mount = unnamed location on West Islet
| elevation = {{convert|169|m|ft}}
| country claim = Japan
| country claim divisions title =Town
| country claim divisions = [[Okinoshima, Shimane|Okinoshima]]
| country claim capital city =
| country claim largest city =
| country claim largest city population =
| country claim leader title =
| country claim leader name =
| country 1 claim = South Korea
| country 1 claim divisions title = County
| country 1 claim divisions = [[Ulleung County]]
| country 1 claim capital city =
| country 1 claim largest city =
| country 1 claim largest city population =
| country 1 claim leader title =
| country 1 claim leader name =
| country = South Korea
| country admin divisions title =County
| country admin divisions = [[Ulleung County]]
| country capital city =
| country largest city =
| country largest city population =
| country leader title =
| country leader name =
| population = 2 + 43 support personnel (in rotation)
| population as of =
| density =
| ethnic groups = [[Korean people|Korean]]
| additional info =
}}
Apparently some people don't like the infobox. Please discuss. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:Apparently, you did not read the previous discussion. Before making drastic change, please use this page first. And please revert your unilateral and undiscussed edit on today and please regard a spirit of consensus. The infobox was deleted by a consensus for the reflection upon the past disputes and possible violation of NPOV; the islets is disputed, not peacefully governed by the two country, So many people were blocked over the infobox. Just because you're an admin, you're allowed to ignore all rules written above? You should have opened a discussion first.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 18:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

::Eh, no need to be so acerbic. For the record, the latest discussion about the infobox was at [[Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_17#Infobox]] (and the section immediately above that). It ended with me making a bold move and throwing it out, with the support of some others. It had been an object of continuous petty strife, and our feeling was it was just not worth it. About the present version, there are a couple of weak points: ''Dokdo'' and ''Takeshima'' aren't "nicknames"; whether Koreans are the "indigenous people" of the islets is pretty debatable; and whether Japanese and Korean administrative claims should both be presented as actual "administration" has been the subject of endless quarrels. Moreover, partisan editors were forever quarreling about the order of presenting Korea-related and Japan-related entries. (Not that I would personally care about the latter, but it's been a long-standing issue.) On the whole, I'd not be in principle opposed to having a box, but as I said, it's not really worth it. Even if we do manage to get an undisputed version, it adds very little actual value to the article. There's hardly anything in the box that a reader couldn't take in just as quickly and easily by reading the lead. My recommendation is still to leave it out, and I'm certainly going to throw it out if there are the slightest signs of a renewal of the old disruptive quarrels over it. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 18:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
:::I support the infobox is out of the article. After it was removed, edit warring was hugely decreased (of course, the current stronger enforcement has been affected to editors as well). The article does not need to introduce all the same tendentious dispute by the infobox.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:I modified the infobox to be more applicable to this article. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::I restored to the previous version cleared by Furf, because you're not consensus, and have not given any rationale why the infobox should be on the article before and after. If I did not visit you, this discussion would not start here. The above statement is not your opinion, but just your decision without any reason.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 05:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Baloney. It certainly ''is'' my opinion, and the infobox (the last one) reflected exactly what was in the article. It's people like you who made me stop caring about this article in the first place as you refuse to compromise on anything that doesn't support your narrow POV. The infobox was completely NPOV after I edited it, so your removal of it was against policy. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
::::[[Baloney]] <-- '''[[WP:NPA|No personal attack]]''', I guess you should look at the policy along with the ArbCom rules which you keep ignoring. Inappropriate comments as an admin. Besides, do not defer or attribute your own past problems to me. The infobox itself was taken out by the ''previous discussion'', and you put it back without any reason given. I originally supported the infobox to be here, but many people still fought over the silly order and administration in the infobox, so it was out. Then edit warring at least did not happen over the infobox. You failed to give any good or bad reason why you think the info box is NPOV of should be here. The little change could hardly be a compromise because the self-claim of NPOV can not be NPOV without consensus and approval. As for ''people like you'', and ''narrow POV'' (again, [[WP:NPA]]), you're included in such the people as you do not show yourself to participate in a discussion. Since the unilateral change and POV, you're one of editors who other supervising admins should watch. Your last comment is, well, nonsense--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::"Baloney" is not a personal attack. And again, the infobox in its most recent incarnation was not POV in the least. All it did was gather the pertinent information from the article and present it in a quick-reference manner. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::You did not listen to what Furf and I said to you. We do all know that generally infobox functions as such, but the infobox in the article has long history to haul edit wars. Non-edit war with no infoboxk is much worth than contentious edit wars with the infobox. As I said before, you're lucky because if non-admin did the same as you did, I could see what the consequence would be to the editor. Besides, whenever any admin made a drastic change to the article, they tended to leave a note or begin a discussion here at first like a good model to ediotors, but you did not behave any of that. Instead you did as if your edit were already discussed or you took an administrative duty to the article per ArbCom rules, which never occurred. --[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

:So, here's the infobox that Caspian blue removed. Please, tell me exactly how this is biased in any way. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::You only put Sea of Japan, with no parenthesis of '''East Sea''' which is violation on NPOV, and the "claim" entry is not based on the article. Whatever Japanese government protests, the territory is de facto governed by South Korea, just like Japan adminisers [[Pinnacle Islands]] regardless of the two Chinaese states' objections. Besides, you may also miss that the order of the countries was the most tendentious subject of edit wars. I don't see any merit of the infobox.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:::Hell, if your only valid complaint is that I didn't put in "(East Sea)", I apologize. You could have edited it to include it (like I just did) instead of complaining about the horrible bias against your POV. And the infobox says nothing about who governs the islands, merely who claims the islands. Everything in the infobox is 100% factual. Facts can not be POV. Regardless of whether you see merit in the infobox, the fact remains that the appropriate infobox(es) should be used in all location articles in order to provide a quick reference to relevant facts in the article. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::::As I repeatedly have said, I really do not appreciate your way of speaking and tone to ''people''. That is pretty much far from my thinking of ideal administrators. That might be my thick bias against your attitude per the past experiences. Anyway, I don't understand your intention to introduce too obvious future edit wars on the infobox. The article has been peacefully remained except several minor edits. The article itself describes necessary information already. If you want to put it back, seek your supporters here. Since only three people participates in this discussion, so wait more input with more time. --[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::The only person complaining about the infobox (at least now) is you. The box pulls information directly from the article, and introduces nothing not found in the article. I even added an "Administered by" section to the infobox in order to please you. Again, the whole point of the infobox is to provide a brief overview of relevant material from the article. It will ALWAYS repeat what is already stated elsewhere in the article, but it does so in a manner which allows someone to briefly glance through it and find small bits of information. You have given no valid objection to the modified infobox. You just keep stating that it's biased without pointing to anything specific in it which can be shown to be biased. I've even modified it multiple times to address points you have made, but you refuse to even consider that the infobox might be useful. Please stop rehashing old and pointedly false claims of POV and instead try to look at it in an unbiased manner. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::The only person trying to restore the infobox with '''no consensus''' is YOU in such the rude manner. You keep repeating that you're NPOV, and I'm not. Who defines so? That is none but you. Furf. already expressed his objection to include it to the article due to the past history. He has been mostly in charge of supervising the article, so I generally respect his opinion more than anyone. You do not need to try to please me, and the comment even implies that you're treating an immature editor. If you want to persuade someone, please be nice. As I already clarified myself to you, I do not support its return after having seen the recent history of the article since Jan.. I don't think the modified infobox could suffice Japanese editor either.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:I think the return of the info box would probably be OK. The article seems to have settled down somewhat and naming lameness is a convenient way to ban users :-) Just do alphabetical for other names and claimed by 'Dokdo, Takeshima', 'Japan, South Korea' and few could really complain about that. Change "Administered by" to "Locally Administered by". The above looks pretty helpful to me. The fact that not much discussion goes on here seems to suggest that the article has settled, and given that other geographical entities tend to have such an info box it would perhaps be a sign of progress to be able to put it back. Just IMO. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::I agree. I just looked up this article after reading about the controversy on the news. I enjoy these geographical summaries, and I would have found this info box to be useful, as it names the governmental areas under which the opposing sides lay claim to it. Perhaps I just like seeing "population: 2" on there :D As a community I would hope that Wikipedians are mature enough to realize that this wiki is not a forum for resolving territorial disputes, but only a place to provide information. As such, I support the return of the info box in it's current form on this discussion page. I do not perceive any POV in this box, but if anyone does, I would encourage them to be specific about what is objectionable, and to be willing to respond to feedback. [[User:JorenCombs|JorenCombs]] ([[User talk:JorenCombs|talk]]) 07:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I tried to make the new infobox as uncontroversial as possible. I limited it to stating facts only. Does anyone object to it as it currently appears above? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for participating ''the retarded discussion'' again. (I quote yours) I object to re-insert the infobox. If you really try to insert the infobox, I believe that you will take ''the consequence'' and ''responsibility''. Thanks. --[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::Please be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. All I did was ask for the opinions of interested parties so that I could gauge consensus. So far, we have you who is against it (though you have given no specific reasons why the current version of the infobox is bad), and three people who think it would be fine to put it back in. As I mentioned a ways above, the infobox has been modified heavily from what it was originally, and presents the information in a neutral manner, only reiterating what is currently in the article. It offers no opinions on the information, but simply presents the facts. If you have specific objections to how the information is presented, please explain those reasons. "I don't like it" is not a valid objection. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

===Request for comments: Inclusion of the above infobox===
This is a dispute over whether the infobox above is [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] in its presentation of basic article information, and whether it should be included in the article. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)



;Note
:I have notified the following editors as they have previously participated in this discussion: [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]], [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Future Perfect at Sunrise]], [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]], [[User:JorenCombs|JorenCombs]]. I also notified [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] as he is listed as one of the admins watching this page (in the big dispute warning box at the top of the page). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

;Additional note
:I intentionally did not notify the [[WP:JA|Japan]] and [[WP:KOREA|Korean]] WikiProjects about this RFC because I want '''outside''' opinions on this issue. I respectfully request that no formal notice be given to these projects in order to prevent a flood of POV opinions on this issue. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

====Statements by those involved in the dispute====
;[[User:Nihonjoe|Nihonjoe]]
:I have gone out of my way to make sure the information in the infobox is presented in a fair and neutral manner. I have incorporated changes mentioned by [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] and others. I even went as far as to create a variant infobox specifically for disputed islands in order to allow for the disputed information to presented in a neutral manner (since the current {{tl|Infobox island}} didn't allow for it). Caspian blue has maintained that the infobox is POV, but has not given specific examples of exactly ''how'' it is POV. I would like outside opinions on the matter as I believe the infobox is a useful summary of basic article information and that the current version (above) succeeds in doing this in a neutral manner. [[User:JorenCombs|JorenCombs]] and [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] seem to agree the infobox is now neutral in its presentation of the basic article information. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

;[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]]
:Nihonjoe mispresents my stance. I'm rather concerning obvious results after the infobox is re-added to the article. The article has a long history on lame disputes over naming orders: One is the order of Dokdo/Takeshima, and the other is which country should be placed on the top over the other country such as administered by Korea/ Japan or Japan/ Korea, another would be Sea of Japan/East Sea, and so forth. Many editors got blocked for the orders, and the country order by alphabet is actually what {{User|Macgruder}} has been claiming regardless of Korean editor's objects in the past. Whether editors like or not, it is a clear fact that the territory is ''de facto'' governed by South Korea just like [[Pinnacle Islands]] ''de facto'' administered by Japan. So it is unbalanced that inserting the infobox with the description of "claimed by both countries" would be another ignite to make editors to edit wars (mostly for Korean editors). Even if the allegedly neutral infobox is changed for Korean side, I don't think editors from Japanese side would not bear the change. My point is that why Nihonejoe try to give another bait for editors to continue disputing further. This article has undergone more than enough. Necessary information are already addressed on the article, so that I support no-edit-warring without the infobox than same old lame and tendentious edit-warrings with it.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

====Comments====
<div style="float:right;">
<span style="text-align:center;">'''Previous Infobox'''</span>
{|class="wikitable"
|colspan="2" bgcolor="#cef2e0" align="center"|'''Administration'''
|-
|valign="top" width="160px" align="center"|[[Image:Flag_of_Japan.svg|30px]]'''Japan'''<br/>
<sub>(Claimed)</sub>
|valign="top" width="160px" align="center"|[[Image:Flag_of_South_Korea.svg|30px]]'''South Korea'''<br/>
<sub>(Occupied)</sub>
|-
|valign="top" align="center"|[[Shimane Prefecture]]
|valign="top" align="center"|[[Gyeongsangbuk-do|North Gyeongsang Province]]
|-
|valign="top" align="center"|([[Okinoshima, Shimane|Okinoshima Town]]<br>
[[Oki District|Oki District, Shimane]])
|valign="top" align="center"|([[Ulleung County]])
|-
|colspan="2" bgcolor="#cef2e0" align="center"|'''Status'''
|-
|valign="top" align="center"|''Claimed''
|valign="top" align="center"|''Occupied''
|}
</div>
Please make comments in this section.
*The "Infobox Disputed Islands" box shown above seems quite nice. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] ([[User talk:Badagnani|talk]]) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*In response to Caspian blue's note about the previous infobox causing edit warring, I would point out that the previous infobox (see right) looked nothing like this one, so any speculation as to possible problems with the new box is merely that: speculation. The only person who has raised any concern regarding the infobox is Caspian blue, and we can't remain like this forever and let our actions be governed by the spectre of what ''might'' happen in the future. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
**In response to Nihonjoe's comment: No, you're still misleading the previous discussion. Fut.Perf already addressed his concern on the infobox per the past history, and you clearly missed the discussion on Jan. and last October. You're ''"the very one"'' pushing to use the "new" infobox, so do not distort my comment and past discussions by several editors not including you.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 00:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
***I'm not here to argue with you. Please allow others to chime in on the discussion as we already know your position. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
****You're here to argue with me, since your pointing-out is a misinterpretation on my opinion and the past discussion. If you want a regard from me, please be civil and stick to what others have said.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
*****Regardless of what you think, I really am trying to get a consensus here, and hopefully with input from people who aren't heavily invested in the discussion already. I've read ALL of the previous discussions having to do with infoboxes (yes, in ALL 18 talk archives), which is how I found the previous infobox. Taking the information I gathered from reading those discussions, from your comments, from Fut.Perf's comments, and from others' comments, I've worked to address ALL of the concerns previously raised and create an infobox which presents the basic article information in a neutral manner. I'm not giving up because I think it's actually possible to create an infobox which is uncontroversial and neutral.
*****So, here we are with an RFC, trying to get comments from the editors at large because it's not really possible to get any sort of valid consensus with only two people (or three if you count Fut.Perf). As I already stated, you've had your chance to give your opinion, so please allow others to come here and give theirs' without having to wade through a bunch of pointless nit picking. Thank you. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
******You're the one who has been making pointless nit pickings on every comments I have made. I only corrected your misinterpretation on "my own opinion" and the "situation". "You're the only one" to oppose --> That is totally false. I already know your stance, so you really don't need to put your cynical comments right under my opinions. Besides, you're just an editor here, but your comments to me seem like "blocking my opinion further" as a "judge". If the consensus you're referring is based on your belief that the infobox is re-added anyhow with some acceptable minor changes, that would be also misguidance. So please let others just read the past discussion and leave their opinion here. Do not criticize or distort my comment further. Thank you.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's simple. The big 2-col info box (the bigger one) is fine. It states the facts at they are. Caspian blue is concerned that it'll start an edit war (''Many editors got blocked for the orders, and the country order by alphabet is actually what Macgruder has been [suggesting is fine]'' - well, editors get blocked for ''changing'' the orders - that's a different thing ). This is a legitimate concern but Wikipedia cannot self-censor itself in the worry that agreed content is not displayed. This is easy to deal with. Once the box is decided upon any unauthorized change to it is an automatic ban - no warning. Reverts must go back to the decided one that will be left on this page. Put that clear in the rules of engagement. [[Senkaku Islands]] has a box. It's necessary because it is a very convenient way to get the facts clearly and easily.

My suggestion right now is: restrict you comments here to any objections you have to the box. If you don't have objections, say so. If you do have objection, clearly state what they are. e.g. ''I think that Japan should be written in a serif-font'' i.e. keep your objections to the box, not past discussions, arguments, etc etc.
[[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
:The article has been numerously "censored" by editors and admins, and you tried to censor the deleted picture, so your comment on the censorship is very funny. The Pinnacle Island article is not under ArbCom ruling just like the article, so the comparison is also not fit. Why don't you take plausible and rationale examples when you want to object to my opinion? Don't insert things that I never said before. Well, consensus plays always an important role and your claim for the alphabetical order is not based on consensus. I already said my opinion on the box enough, so your last paragraph is well, unnecessary.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::'you tried to censor the deleted picture'. The only meaningful response I can come up with is 'It goes up to 11'. My second paragraph was a general comment. Why did you assume it was directed at you? I'm reminded of an album by Black Sabbath. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
*This is why I don't support the infobox's reintroduciton.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks&curid=15945001&diff=239804703&oldid=239767695] --[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
**Because some idiot IP vandalized comments? So what? It happens all the time. If necessary, we can semi-protect the article. If it's just simple vandalism, just revert it. What you pointed to is not a valid reason for opposing ''this'' infobox, especially since it's not anything at all like the one which caused issues before. We need to focus on whether ''this'' infobox presents information in a neutral manner. We can deal with petty vandalism, but such vandalism is not a good reason to not put the infobox into the article. If we let the ''threat'' of vandalism keep us from doing things here on Wikipedia, we'll be frozen in time and never do anything. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*::The above my comment is toward Macgruder, not you. Nihonjoesan.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*::::Yes, but I already addressed that concern. Read my above comment again: ''[Caspian blue's comment] is a legitimate concern but Wikipedia cannot self-censor itself in the worry that agreed content is not displayed. This is easy to deal with. Once the box is decided upon any unauthorized change to it is an automatic ban - no warning. Reverts must go back to the decided one that will be left on this page. Put that clear in the rules of engagement.'' But rather than digesting that, you went off an a rant about censorship, and complained about 'me objecting to your opinion' when what I actually said was 'You have a legitimate concern'. If you have problem with understanding the English, fine, but it's better not to start arguing with people in such cases. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*:::::Macgruder, do not continuously resort to [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. That appears to be your habitual behaviors. I emphasize my concern over the infobox as showing the diff, so why don't you refrain from committing absolutely unhelpful and reckless behaviors? Regards.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 11:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*::::::Where is the personal attack? What appears to be the habitual behaviour here is that whatever anyone posts - and Nihonjoe is making a great effort to do something for the good of the page - you just seem interested in creating some argument about some past point. I'll give you an example of a personal attack. You should be familiar with it as you wrote it: "'''As for people like you''', and narrow POV (again, WP:NPA), you're included in such the people as you do not show yourself to participate in a discussion" [''this is one of the rudest comments I have ever read on Wikipedia, and that's against some pretty stiff competition''].
*::::::It was you who decided in response '''to my very first post''' in this area to make some non-sensical ramble about censorship, followed by a sarcastic comment about it being funny. So don't start whingeing when people respond to you in kind, as if you're just some innocent bystander. Something about people, stones, and glass houses comes to mind. And it goes on and on : "Besides, do not defer or attribute your own past problems to me.", "Your last comment is, well, nonsense", "you're lucky because if non-admin did the same as you did, I could see what the consequence would be to the editor.", " really do not appreciate your way of speaking and tone to people." , "That is pretty much far from my thinking of ideal administrators.", "is YOU in such the rude manner.", "Thank you for participating the retarded discussion again.", "why Nihonejoe try to give another bait for editors to continue disputing further", "You're here to argue with me, since your pointing-out", "You're the one who has been making pointless nit pickings on every comments I have made", "you tried to censor the deleted picture, so your comment on the censorship is very funny" (wtf??), "I already said my opinion on the box enough, so your last paragraph is well, unnecessary". In fact, I'm actually struggling to find one comment here where you haven't been argumentative. You may not realize but in English this kind of language ''appears'' somewhat passive aggressive. I merely pointed out that it seemed you were struggling with the English by the evidence of your last comment. Why not try to cool down, and simply stick to the topic at hand? If you saw, I suggested that since Nihonjoe is trying to discover any specific problems that people may have with the *content* of the box we stick to that. That was specially written to prevent arguments about past issues. Even that you turned into some issue about censorship (I can only assume that you're confusing your English here as suggesting people stick to the point is not censorship) that has nothing to do with the point at hand saying 'how funny it was'. How is that helpful? In fact, I'm amazed at Nihonjoe's patience with you (more than I would have). He's polite, he's trying to do something here, and you keep insisting on creating arguments. Here's a challenge: see if you can come up with some specific suggesting or problems with the box's CONTENT. Or if you can't find any, you can say that. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*::::{{User|Macgruder}}, the rudest comment you've ever seen is Nihonjoe's comment. If you want to praise the comment, feel free to do so to him. I only quoted his comment. Also your other quotes of mine is also me quoting Nihonjoe's. Oh, I understand that you think Nihonjoe never should said such comments because he should behave like ordinary admins (well, I've got more than ''the rudest attack'' at his talk page though) He is polite? Oh, in your book. You're being very funny making false allegations for yourself. I get that you're upset at my observation, then at this time, you will learn that your (intentional/unintentional) verbal attacks make people annoyed. I said the above from my own observation on you. The mention of English is certainly a twisted sarcasm and personal attacks by you from bad faith. That is insinuating not only my English being very poor, but also my readability and intelligence. Regardless whether you do not realize your behaviors or not is not, people often get offenses by your comments in various occasions. You once tried to block an admin at Korean Wiki with your sock ip at Fut.Perf talk page and you poured childish personal attacks against me and the person and you blanked them for whatever reason (maybe for wrapping up the unfruitful report or shame?). You also attacked an editor who was disputing over an image, and I consider your disguised (unwarranted) lecturing about civility and censorship with more personal attacks is just hilarious. Please focus on your argument, not make rambling more. Keep cool yourself. I don't see any good argument from your rambling.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*:::::I've already made my points clearly and succinctly. The box is fine IMO, ban people who change it, keep a copy here for reference. I'm not lecturing. I couldn't care less what you have to say (unless you stick to the topic at hand - except it's hard find any examples of that). The issue here is that you started an argument by making a sarcastic comment, and then starting whining about personal attacks. Sorry that you feel that my comments about your poor English are taken to be about your intelligence - that's not my intention, but you're welcome to interpret it that way if it's more accurate. Readability is part of English. Once again, you seem only interested in some imaginary past sleights. You may imagine that Nihonjoe is being rude to you, but I read and I notice that he is pretty polite in general, and when most people are discussing issues there's civility. Take a look through this page - it's you who is the centre of every argument about 'civility' etc. - that should tell you something. I made 3 points to this discussion. One of which actually said you 'had a legitimate concern'. Your response: 'Don't insert things that I never said before.' FFS, '''I was agreeing with you'''. Either you don't understand the English or I don't know: you actually start arguing with people '''who agree with a point you make''' with an aggressive style. What kind of sense is that? You tell me, how do you expect people to respond to you when you argue aggressively ''when they are agreeing with you'', and when you immediately start off with sarcastic comments to their legitimate points? Answer that and then we'll talk. Anyway, that is my last on that as other editors no doubt find these discussions tiresome. It truly does go up to 11. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*::::::My point is very simple. I oppose to the introduction and said enough about the reason. You're trying to make a fuss to defend for how Nihonjoe is polite (blah!). I did not know that your succinct argument is nothing but rambling without any plausible logic and plus, making personal attacks. Your quotation of my quoting Nihonjoe's is a good example for what you believe is wrong. Nihonejoe has been very rude to me. I'd tried very hard myself having good faith on him, but all I got from him is extremely rude (more than rude) personal attacks, false accusations and cold sarcasm. I don't mind you defend him for your own imagination, but do not push such thing to other people. You're just mad at my criticism on your "habit". That is true that people got offended by you and your sockpuppeting at Fut.Pert is a good example. Besides, I have not said anything about your agreement with some of my opinion. Well, why don't you stop jumping for nowhere? Macgruder, reading your rambling is just wasting of my time.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 20:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
*:::::::Let's see how this started. I said:
*:::::::"''Caspian blue is '''concerned''' that it'll start an edit war ... This is a '''legitimate concern''''' followed by a reasonable opinion on my behalf. Essentially agreeing with you, but saying why IMO this was not a worry. Read that again carefully and notice it is couched in a neutral, understanding tone.
*:::::::Your response: ''your comment on the censorship is very funny. Why don't you take plausible and rationale examples when you want to object to my opinion? Don't insert things that I never said before.'' Sarcasm plus argument.
*:::::::It's clear to me that you simply don't have the English ability to understand the nuances of what people are saying to you. In the above case thing actually complaining that 'I was objecting to you' (when in fact I was agreeing) and 'inserting things you didn't say' ( I actually put your 'legitimate' concern).
*:::::::''When you don't understand English very well'' (the above is evidence of that) , don't assume that people are personally attacking you when they disagree with you. They usually aren't (as the above example shows).
*:::::::I suggest therefore that you take time to improve your English, and/or check carefully whether people simply are of a different opinion rather than assuming they are 'inserting things you didn't say' etc.
*:::::::Since I have no confidence that you are understanding the nuances of my comments, I am going to avoid engaging with you in future which I'm sure will make everyone happy :-) Good luck with your studies. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 07:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
*::::::::'''Macgruder''', it is so clear that you're the one resorting to personal attacks with your lengthy rambling rather using the page to develop your argument. Keep focus on the main subject. If you can't, well, I'd say your calmness would be great help for the discussion. Do not pour such ramblings for your own habitual problem. The conversations with you are totally meaningless and zero-helpful to the talk page. Your false accusation as quoting my (actually Nihonjoe's) comments is hilarious. You're also quite about the example on your rudeness with your sockpuppetry at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. Those are clear example of personal attacks. Your rambling still is going on, and I think I let you indulge in your imagination. Good luck--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 11:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

*:::This is a conversation between multiple people, and anyone may comment if they wish. Regardless of if you were specifically directing your comments toward Macgruder (which was not at all clear in your original comments), my point is still valid. We can't let "what if someone edit wars?" or "what if someone vandalizes?" keep us from doing things here. If someone vandalizes or edit wars, we'll deal with that. The only question here is whether the "Disputed Islands" infobox I proposed above is neutral in its presentation of basic article information. If it is, then it should be included in the article. If it isn't, we should work on it until it is. Do you have any specific concerns about the infobox and how it presents information? If not, why are you trying to prevent this infobox from being included? If so, what are they? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is like what happened a few years ago when we tried to put in an infobox like this one. The core problem is the peoples' interpretation of "administration" so it shouldnt be in there because people are going to fight over the meaning of the word. [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] ([[User talk:Good friend100|talk]]) 15:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::Now thank-you. That's a good point. I suggested 'Local Administration' as a possible compromise, as it's factually true. I'm fine with either. What's your opinion Good friend? [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Or perhaps "Currently Administered by"? With any territory that is disputed, there will be one side which has actual control over the territory, so I don't see how either "Administered by" or "Currently Administered by" could be misinterpreted. They are just the facts. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
* [Third party called to give a neutral opinion] I have no objections in putting not only the current administration but different claims in the infobox. However, in other controversial articles like [[Falkland Islands]] and [[Gibraltar]] only the current situation is described. From what I read in the conversation, the only real objection to the infobox is that it may trigger edit wars due the meaning of "Administered by". That can be easily solved with a footnote explaining the meaning being applied. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] ([[User talk:ReyBrujo|talk]]) 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
::I think the edit war problem is slight overcooked. We make it clear in the Discussion area that ''any'' changes at all to the the info-box means a ban then it won't happen. And since info boxes tend to be unchanging it's not a big problem. Keep a copy of the agreed one in this area. [[User:Macgruder|Macgruder]] ([[User talk:Macgruder|talk]]) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
'''Support upper infobox''', the one that says "Disputed Islands" (except I'm not sure it needs to actually state "Disputed Islands"). I'm registering this as my outside opinion, I knew/know nothing about the dispute other than what is in the article and two BBC articles linked from it. But at a quick glance I can only see evidence for trouble-makers seeking to upset the generally accepted status quo. Until Japan registers a dispute with a competent legal authority (and I don't think I'm seeing that) or launches an armed assault on the islands (and I don't think I'm seeing that either), I don't see the point in exaggerating the degree of "dispute" that's going on. I'm quite prepared to retract this opinion (and blank this posting) if I've made a factual mistake. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:A country does not need to register a dispute to have a dispute. In fact, it is even possible for a country to have a dispute without even realizing it. I don't think that the disputed status of these islets is even slightly questionable, and therefore I support the upper infobox in its entirety. I could not detect anything on it that is either false, or not stated on the article, or in some way misrepresenting the balance of positions and thereby NPOV. And I think it's quite an improvement to the previous infobox. Infoboxes on disputed areas are very hard to compose as the diverging POVs must be equally and carefully accommodated. This one manages to do that pretty well and should make a good addition to the article. Heh, this reminds me of the difficulties with the infobox on [[Olivenza]]. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
'''Support the upper 'disputed islands' infobox''', as an uninvolved user who was unfamiliar with this dispute until I ran across it at Requests For Comment and did some background reading. It seems to do a good job of concisely summarising the status quo without any POV problems that I could detect. It ''is'' disputed, and it ''is'' currently administered by Korea. It's certainly a big improvement on the previous infobox, which is both less informative and to me reads as a lot more POV - there's a lot of baggage that comes with the word "occupied". ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]</sup> 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

*How about putting it in on a trial basis and removing it if it becomes a source of dispute? I'm no great fan of infoboxes. They have their place but aren't an end unto themselves. Best wishes and hoping this helps, <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' NihonJoe's proposed infobox. I believe it presents and summarizes the subject and surrounding issues fairly and neutrally. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the discussion and comments above, I have placed the infobox into the article. The '''Suggested Rules of Engagement''', above, apply to the infobox as well. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Congratulations, 日本穣. Of course, the rule would '''apply to everyone'''. I believe you would be responsible for your "bold" action here and following outcomes. Good luck.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I'm only responsible for my own actions. If someone else is stupid and decides to vandalize the infobox or something else in the article, that's their own choice and they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. As someone above stated, if someone messes with it, they get a warning and/or a block. There's no luck involved. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The reintroduction of the infobox is ''your idea''. Besides, I'm bemused to find this addition that ''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 '''Nihonjoe'''.'' Therefore, I'm only stating the your volunteered duty for the article. You might get very vigilant for your action. Good luck with that.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Aha. Yes, my name is there, and yes, the new infobox was my idea (though many people, including you, helped improve it to its current state). I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the article. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 22:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Regarding Additions by [[User:Lexico]] ==

I understand your alarm with unannotated sources; I would have responded similarly had I not been researching the subject in as many sources as were available to me on-line and in print. The vast majority of secondary sources that discuss the subject, unfortunately, are not in English. I could supply bibliographical information (one at a time) that would summarise the significance of the sources if there were a separate section for that; I am not aware of one at the moment. Any workable suggestion?

== ''New York Times'' article ==

The recent flare-up of the dispute prompted ''The New York Times'' to run [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/world/asia/31islands.html a fairly lengthy story] on August 31 about these islets. It appears to me that some information from the story might usefully be incorporated in our article, but I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident in editing. I pass the link on to the more knowledgeable editors for their consideration.

One point that struck me was that, according to the ''Times'', 80,000 Koreans visited the islets in the first eight months of 2008. Considering that there is, objectively, no reason for such a visit, the statistic highlights the intensity of the feeling on the Korean side, at least. I suggest it for inclusion. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]]<small>&nbsp;[[User_talk:JamesMLane|t]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/JamesMLane|c]]</small> 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting article. It's interesting that people can get so worked up over something so small. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)



:If someone took my property and my house that i worked so hard to build it would be something big because it affects my livelihood especially if they told me that my house and land belonged to them...that is how the permanent Korean residents feel in Dokdo and that is how the Korean people feel. And I am pretty sure that if Taiwan claimed that the westerly islands of Okinawa belonged to them after 50 years Japan and its citizens would be really worked up. personally i do empathize with the suffering of the old generation during Japan's attempt to take over Korea because many Korean women were forced sex slaves. However, it is the past and it is easy for me to forgive and forget because I have not experienced that kind of brutality but all these old women that are in their 70's and 80's holding signs in the air are only looking for a simple apology. Is it so difficult to admit that Japan's regime at that time did sexually molest Korean women and to say we are sorry for that. No wonder why the hate continues because when people see the signs that those old women are holding up in the streets they feel their pain and the hate spreads to the younger generation. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Koguryo18|Koguryo18]] ([[User talk:Koguryo18|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Koguryo18|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::Japan's prime minister has apologized for things Japan did during WWII. But that has nothing to do with these <s>islets</s> rocks, really. Bringing that up here will only inflame opinions on both sides, so please keep that off of this talk page (and off Wikipedia, for that matter, as this is not the correct forum for such discussions).

::Going back to the rocks: There's not even enough room on them for more than a few people to stand at one time. From all the pictures I've seen, they'd be hard pressed to get everyone who is "stationed" there to find a somewhat flat place to stand. Most of the 46 acres (do you realize how tiny that is? and that it's split between multiple rocks?) of land is almost vertical cliffs, with barely enough room to squeeze a tiny little house for the two permanent residents. They had to level off the top of one of the islets to make room for the tiny little building and radio tower they have there. Did I mention how tiny these buildings are? And how tiny these rocks are? You can barely even see them with the various satellite imagery available out there. If it weren't for all this hubbub about them, I doubt anyone would even know where they were, or even care for that matter. That's why I'm so amazed at how much hate and vitriol is tossed around about these tiny little rocks that are barely big enough to be called "permanent land".

::So, yes, I find it interesting that so many people want to go see such a speck of a place, and that people get so worked up about it. And yes, the article above was interesting. Did you even read it? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::If your really trying to deny links of Japans 1910-1945 annexation of the Korean Penninsula with WW2 then your highly mistaken. You can read on the Wiki page how much control the Japanese empire had over the Koreans. Its from them re-writing books under Japanese control, or not being given sufficient control over their own literature to distribute the maps which would highlight ealier claims for the "rocks" and the Sea of Japan for that matter. The Japanese stance is more resource based now as this has only flared up in recent times, causing the natural Korean compunction to immediately dislike to the Japanese from the past(funny enough the Japanese helped Korea build a successful infrastructure and systems still working today, as you can see quite well). I suggest people check the archives of the english Chosun Ilbo paper on the web which shows both sides quite clear as opposed to the New York Times, which did not take its sources from its own fact finding mission(Editor of NYT for the subject was from a different paper/source, see name attached to Article of NYT). J Webster 7th October 2008 07:53(UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.239.159.6|62.239.159.6]] ([[User talk:62.239.159.6|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Sorry hadnt logged in (J.Webster) Link to english chosun ilbo archives as http://english.chosun.com/ (the NYT article is a Korean living in seoul btw search his name CHOE SANG-HUN. thanks. [[User:CorrectlyContentious|CorrectlyContentious]] ([[User talk:CorrectlyContentious|talk]]) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Adding Juksoe and Kwanumdo to the map ==

Would it be possible to add Juksoe and Kwanumdo to the map? Does anybody have their coordinates? [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:Are those two of the many "pebble islets" surrounding these two glorified rocks? I don't think there's any reason to add names for anything other than the two main rocks (which are barely large enough to live on as it is). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

::Dunno, which is why I'm asking. Since the article quotes Japanese sources as claiming that "Usan-do" refers to them, not The Rocks, it would be useful to understand what they're talking about it. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|talk]]) 12:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Aha. I can see that. Perhaps it would be good to make a separate map showing those in relation to these two rocks? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 22:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Does anyone have a map showing where these two are? I can't find anything on them (other than brief mentions in a few articles here and there). I can't find any maps showing them. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 04:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

== Split out "International dispute" section to separate article? ==

This article is way too long and needs to be split. The section which takes up the most space is the International dispute section. I think it would be good to split that section out into a separate article, leaving only a brief description here with a link to the other article. Perhaps something like [[Liancourt Rocks dispute]]? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="green">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]]</sup></small> 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:No. The dispute section goes hand in hand with explaining the naming of the article. I would suggest improving the dispute section. Make wordings shorter, more efficient, but don't take out the details. Currently, the dispute section just presents list of things without organization and good argumentation. Shape and mold them into sections covering more broader topics that unify multiple paragraphs. ([[User:Ferromagneticmonopole|Ferromagneticmonopole]] ([[User talk:Ferromagneticmonopole|talk]]) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

== Very biased article ==

At the moment this article only represents the Korean point of view and does not justice to Japanese rights to the island. This must be correct, but article is locked. Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this blatant propaganda!! [[User:IsorokuYamamoto|IsorokuYamamoto]] ([[User talk:IsorokuYamamoto|talk]]) 06:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Any specific parts you have strong objections to? I have no particular opinion either way on the sovereignty of these islets, and the article does not, overall, appear particularly biased to me. ~ <font color="#228b22">[[User:Mazca|'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a''']]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|'''t''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Mazca|'''c''']]</sup> 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Propaganda? Hut, from Korean point of view, the title itself is the reflection of "Japanese persistent propaganda". Just like Krill Islands, and Pinnacle Islands (called Senkaku Island in Japan), if the article follows the same international convention on disputed territories, the title name might be ''Dokdo''. The article is only locked for IP and new users due to the long time disruption. You're a new user, so you have to constructively build your history here. Given your inappropriate your comment at [[Sea of Japan]], I don't buy you're a newbie though.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)<br /><br />
:I agree that the tone of this article is bias. I am Canadian, but currently, I live in Japan and teach at a University here. I am trying to foster communication between my Japanese university students and those in other countries using English as a vehicle for greater international communication. I thought Dokdo/Takeshima would be an ideal topic to talk about in class. I came to this article on Wikipedia to gather information for that purpose. Quite frankly, I was very surprised by the tone of the article, which evidently supports the Korean side of this dispute. I don't know if I would feel comfortable using this article, as I do not have confidence in the neutrality of the author. I will refer to several instances in the article that I noticed immediately and take particular issue with:<br /><br />
:Instance 1: Under the heading of International Dispute, the author states that both South Korea and Japan are claiming sovereignty and proceeds to state the basis for Korean claims in brief, but does not refer to the Japanese claims at all. This paragraph appears to serve as a kind of introduction to the dispute and therefore, I believe it should also contain a brief summary of the Japanese claim as well.<br /><br />
:Instance 2: Also, under the heading of International Dispute, all of the sub-sections referring to historical claims before the 1904 state only the Korean claim and do not give any reference to Japanese historical claims i.e. maps, data etc. I would assume that such historical evidence exists and should be included here. Otherwise, I doubt this dispute between countries would have continued as long as it has.<br />
:When references ARE given from Japan's historical documents, they are always documents that support the Korean claim. I would like to see some historical documents supporting the Japanese claim included here for neutrality.<br /><br />
:Instance 3: Under the heading 1904 Japan-Korea treaty, the author plainly writes that Japan's motivation for claiming Dokdo/Takeshima during the Russo-Japanese war was not a defensive manoeuvre, but because of Japan's "own violence and greed". Now this whole paragraph's English grammar is rather poor, so it is possible that the author wasn't intentionally making this statement, but it is a very strong POV statement as it is currently phrased.<br /><br />
:Instance 4: Under the heading Early Japanese efforts to claim Liancourt Rocks and Ulleung Island, the author makes an arguably unnecessarily comment about Mr. Kawakami Kenzo being educated neither as a historian nor a geographer and, in my opinion, seeming to imply that he is unworthy to be the person in charge of researching and writing the petition to the Allied Powers. Now this may be nitpicking, but I don't believe someone necessarily needs to have been educated in a field to be able to study it in depth and with understanding. At the very least, I feel slightly doubtful that the Korean petition's authors, the Patriotic Old Men's Association, were all historians and geographers because the author of the article describes this associations leader, Mr. Cho Sung Hwan, as being a former military leader, not a historian nor a geographer. <br />
:So, consequently, I feel that the author's statement of Mr. Kawakami not being of the correct background to write the petition to be nothing more than criticism designed to remove confidence from Kawakami's statements. Possibly this lack of confidence is deserve as the author claims later, but I feel as though the author should have let the facts presented speak for themselves.<br /><br />
:Now there are other reasons why I believe this article to be biased, but I feel as though I am writing too much here and I will simply ask that these instances I have pointed out be discussed and potentially remedied. I would really like to be able to use Wikipedia as a reference for my students. Additionally, I would just like to state that I have always supported the Korean side in this discussion based on what I have read. However, that does make me feel as though there is an excuse for Wikipedia to allow an article of this level of bias especially considering the sensitivity of the subject matter. Thank you.--[[User:Kaylarr 11|Kaylarr 11]] ([[User talk:Kaylarr 11|talk]]) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:41, 12 October 2008

This template is used in hundreds of articles. Please think carefully before changing it, and make sure you explain your change in your edit summary. Any unexplained changes may be reverted.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks&oldid=244732937"