Sąrašo aptarimas:Japonijos salos

Straipsnio aptarimas iš Vikipedijos, laisvosios enciklopedijos.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

En: It seems like Takeshima doesn't belong here. It's Korean island now, isn't it? Lt: Takešima (Liankūro uolos) šiuo metu priklauso Korėjai, kodėl jos šiame sąraše? --Nomad 20:48, 2007 rugpjūčio 25 (EEST)

The administration of the Island is uncertain so far. Because Japanese government officially tell Takeshima is the integral island of Japan, on the while Korean government officilly tell Dokdo is our island. it's a quite difficult issue to solve.Though, if you think occupied land belongs to the occupier. you are right. So... Let me introduce the words that explains this situation if a theive steal something important of you, does the important thing belong to the theive?. I think this answer is 'No' on the law.
Historically, the govenment of S.Korea and the government of United States had letter talks over the administration of Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo/Takeshia). And Deputy Under Secretary of US, Dean Rusk officially answered to the Korean You-Chan Yang that there is no evidences that Dokdo belongs to Korea. it was in 1951. and then... South Korean President Syngman Rhee suddenly declared in 1952 the Syng-man Rhee line that decide the nation border without any agreements with the related countries(USA, Japan). And Japan quickly protested against the South Korean action .
we are wikipedian. while a topic in an article was on discussion in Wikipedia, if someone changed the the part of the topic. we call it Vandalism.
I think this Korean president's action is quite simillar to it.
though we can't say Liancourt Rocks belongs to S.Korea nor to Japan. so if each of them says it's their island. we should write it as they say, until this is solved at the World court. that's NPOV. don't you think so?--Boldlyman 04:04, 2007 rugpjūčio 29 (EEST)
I think it's beyond wikipedia's comptetence to decide if isles were "stolen" by Korea as you try to imply at the first place. Wikipedia must reflect facts, and the fact is, Liancourt rocks don't belong to Japan. We could add them to this list if - and only if - there was a clear fact that they belong to Japan and was occupied by Korea. Is this fact clear? I think no, it is disputed. That's why we renamed isles to Liancourt, not to "Takeshima". Do you agree? --Nomad 06:48, 2007 rugpjūčio 29 (EEST)
Yes. :) Basically, I agree with you. Though, it seems that there are some Takeshima islandS in Japan. see en:Takeshima_(disambiguation). the name 'Takeshima' is not only for Liancourt Rocks in Japan. so, we might better to remain the name takeshima to avoid those ambiguousness. but I don't have the best solution to handle this so far, I'll denpended your policy. if you could, please add the 6 entries, "Takeshima, Aichi", "Takeshima, Miyagi", "Takeshima, Kagoshima", "Takeshima, Yamaguchi", "Takeshima, Shimane", "Takeshima, Kumamoto". I don't know how those new place name should be written in Lithuanian. :S --Boldlyman 14:29, 2007 rugpjūčio 29 (EEST)