User talk:Good friend100/Archive1

[[== Talk pages == I believe these are supposed to be mostly about the articles in question. I'm not sure what raising the issue of Takeshima has to do with Yasukuni Shrine? It adds more unrelated material to wade through on already crowded pages. Komdori 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Dokdo/Takeshima and the Takeshima are both common in that Japan is raising disputes. Good friend100 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) That's true; but I think discussions of the islands belong on that article's talk page instead. Japan and North Korea are having a disput now over missiles. Do you think it should be discussed on the Yasukuni shrine page as well? Komdori 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I believe the users should be informed about bigger disputes between Korea and Japan and the fact that Japan is raising all these disputes, namely Dokdo. FYI, if you didn't know, Japan is suddenly claiming Dokdo recently for economical reasons rather than historical fact. Japan is an industrialized nation and it consumes a lot of energy. There is a possibility of gas reserves near Dokdo and Japan wants it.

Check out the number of supporting facts Korea has and how many Japan has. Good friend100 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people should be informed about all main topics of the world, but unrelated Wikipedia articles are not a platform for spouting personal politics. It seems others have warned you of this as well... Incidently, since this is a talk page, one might feel more lax in their comments. I agree with Komdori that this stuff doesn't belong in an article page, though. Incidently, try to do a little more reading from non-point of view sources, and you might see that it's not such a clear cut issue. Takeshima has been clearly regarded as a Japanese possession for all modern history. Korea wants the land for the reason you are suggesting, although the maritime and global surveys are registered with the Japanese names, for example, stretching back for centuries. It's nothing "sudden." Your statement that "Japan is raising these disputes" is also incorrect and argumentative--one could just as easily state that Korea is raising them. Koizumi's decision to visit Yasukuni is his own personal matter, and he is not making his decision based upon Korean opinions. This is clear because if he were, he wouldn't be going! The fact is he is Japanese, and in Japan. I and many others find it ironic that a foreign land would find fault with this. Mao alone killed many more than the country of Japan ever did. He is worshipped. Should people protest that in foreign lands? Please, try to have respect for others if you want respect for yourself.

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to spew your personal ideas, nor is it a club for you and your buddies to self-gratify by ganging up. Please read more about this project and its goals as an encyclopedia--not a forum LactoseTI 06:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Are some of you too shamed of yourselves to even leave your own name on my page? I wonder why everyone is ganging up on my talk page? Is this an "attack" since I am pushing out to strong? "Takeshima has been clearly regarded as a Japanese possession for all modern history." You are making me laugh. So then, where is the proof? Japan had possesion of Dokdo all this time? THe only reason why Japan is screaming for Dokdo is more of economical reasons rather than historical fact. Since Japan is an indusltrialized nation, it consumes a lot of energy. There is talk about gas reserves near Dokdo. That is why Japan wants it. The gas near Dokdo, not for historical facts. It is so obvious how there are more historical facts Korea has then Japan. The earliest date of Japan's territory of "Takeshima" was in the 1600s. The Korean source has gone back to the 550s. And even if your Japanese historians scream that the 550s source mention Jukdo, not Dokdo, Korea still has the oldest record in 1432, when King Sejong, during the Joseon Dynasty, had a map drwan called the "Sejongsillokjiriji". Do you have any proof that Japan has had Dokdo all this time and Korea is being aggresive to them? Maybe you should look in your famous Japanese textbook. Good friend100 12:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Not surprisingly, you seem to have been blinded by Korea's engine of propaganda. Your source mentions the territory was VISITED in the 550's. By that logic, I suppose the countries where Vikings came from should claim North America as theirs since there are records of them visiting--nay, there are even artifacts. If your claim is true, then why is Takeshima the recognized name of the area? And why is it recognized as a Japanese possession by the UN? Korea is desperate to keep the issue out of court because of these facts. It doesn't matter what happened in any Ding Dong/Ping Pong "Dynasties". The fact remains that it was clearly Japanese territory in modern times, and never ceded by any treaty. The Ainu don't try to kick out the Japanese, the Native American Indians aren't trying to remove Westerners, etc. Don't read a propaganda mush, try informing yourself of international law, instead. It's true that Japan is applying increased pressure to the area, but that's only because Korea started doing the same thing. The only reason Korea has made any claim to the area was a unilateral move by a South Korean president, stating it was theirs in the 1950's. Well, I could state all of South Korea is mine, it doesn't make it true. What's more, finding that some peasant scribbled a blob on a piece of paper he called a map doesn't make for a modern day territorial claim. Records of "who was there" does't matter either--Britain clearly was in control of the US colonies (there's a record) but it's not part of Britain today. Land is ceded and acquisitioned at various times by various nations. Japan annexed it a long time ago, this is recognized, and nothing Korea can do will change the fact that it was never ceded after that point in time. Incidently, for the record, I'm NOT Japanese. LactoseTI 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I can point out you are angry. Nice rambling with your words and insults since you have nothing to say. It seems you really are a true defender of Japan as a sympathizer.

You are making me laugh. You think "Korea only visited Dokdo"? Hm. Maybe you should study a little more before throwing words at me. If you already didn't know, Korea at the time was the Unified Silla Dynasty. Silla annexed Dokdo, which at the time was part of an island kingdom called Usan-guk that included Ulleungdo as well. Silla annexed Usan-guk and so it became part of Korea in the 550s.

One thing really common of the Japan party is that they use literal terms as a weapon. One time, a user told me because the San Francisco treaty did not mention Dokdo, Dokdo was Japanese territory. Ok, then, I suppose every single one of the thousands of islands in Korea are still Japanese territory then, right? No. Of course not.

Also, another commoness among the Japan party is when I mention about Japan's pursuit for oil in Dokdo, nobody answers me or returns a comment about it at all. I suppose its because they know its true.

"Modern times, modern times, modern times" Thats all I hear too. "Japan has had Dokdo during modern times." Ok, then, when, during the modern times?

On January 29, 1946, the supreme command of the Allies released the military command of No. 677 of SCAPIN and returned Jejudo, Ulleungdo, and Dokdo back to Korea. On June 22, 1946, the Allies forbade Japanese fishermen to enter Dokdo waters by a radius of 12 miles. Still think Japan has had Dokdo during the modern times? Or do you have anything else to say?

IF you strongly believe that "Takeshima" is really Japanese territory and Korea has no right to interfere and be aggresive, then why don't you go to the Dokdo talk page and open a poll or argue for Japan's right to control and own Dokdo. Nothing is going to happen by just screaming in my talk page.

I really don't like your "Ding dong ping dong Dynasty" statement. That is an insult and I think you should stop. I am going to refer you to a Wikipedia coordinator immediately if you keep up with your insults.

"Korean propaganda machine..." Wow.

You seem to accuse many people of being angry who disagree with you; I have no feeling of anger at all. I doubt most of the others that disagree with you are angry, either. Instead, they are legitimately trying to help you get a more global view, rather than a simple one provided by your home nation. Wikipedia is a multi-national endeavor, so it's valuable to know other viewpoints, especially when they are the mainstream in some sense (in this case, as defined by the UN). I am surprised you thought I was insulting; I didn't intend that at all--since you said I didn't have content to say, you must have missed it. I suggest you reread. There was no Korean permanent settlements on the island at any time at the time you're quoting. Kind of like Balboa claiming the entire Pacific Ocean and all the lands for his country--just because you say it doesn't make it happen. Please read the details of the San Francisco treaty. The idea was they were to return what had been annexed (Korea) in WWII. They did not return lands they had annexed BEFORE that conflict (Takeshima and others). Please read the details of the Korean government trying to keep this matter out of international court. It's because arguments such as yours simply don't hold up. Korea is trying a unilateral takeover of a land they don't own--ostensibly because of the gas resources you claim Japan is after. If that's the case, then why did Japan annex and claim that land for the last centuries? I suppose you are suggesting they are truly forward thinking... Why quote SCAP? You are incorrect--it NEVER returned Takeshima to Korea. It temporarily took many, many islands out of Japanese hands, and returned them later. Some went to Russia, others to third parties, but Takeshima remained Japanese. The other islands were explicitly declared, and Takeshima fell by default to Japan when the SCAP order expired. It's typical of those on your argument side to try to twist the debate in your favor by quoting unrelated information out of context. Just because they temporarily suspened control doesn't mean "it went to Korea." Talk about revisionist history! I am disappointed you feel insulted. I and others are not trying to insult you, but instead trying to suggest you try to keep your own political agenda OUT of Wikipedia. It doesn't belong. If you can't stop your political drivel from clogging up articles and talk pages where it doesn't belong, you don't belong here either. When you lose an argument, as you seem to often, don't go run to administrator and claim that losing made you "feel bad." I couldn't figure out from where this immature behavior came--I had initially seen your claim to be an "academic" and thought I was discussing with a peer--instead, I notice a few words further down acknowledging you are simply a high schooler, which explains the lapse in personal control. Read this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I suppose some at your age have some original ideas, but the vast majority seem to be in the category of spewing what they've heard from the ones they respect. Read a bit more about the Wikipedia project, and you can see how it benefits all to keep your own ideology to yourself. Just because you heard it from your dad or mom, or heard it from a teacher in class, doesn't mean it's neutral or right. LactoseTI 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC) I lose an argument? Are you calling me a baby? Are you looking me down because I am "simply a high schooler? "Seems I lose arguments a lot"? Check talk pages and see who has the last thing to say in each discussion. Me. Your insults are not direct but they can be found hidden by your euphemistic words. You like to make things nasty don't you? Wait. How dirty can you get, knowing that you are insulting me and instead writing "I and others are not trying to insult" me. So, then "I and others" means that you want to isolate me from the rest of the group and pick on me as the weak, high school, Korean Wikipedian who loses every argument. I am not a Korean nationalist. It seems you think I have been politically brainwashed by the Korean "propaganda machine". No. Where are your sources? All you do is shout out claims without support. You deny everything I say as well. I asked you already. IF YOU BELIEVE JAPAN HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN DOKDO then why don't you go complain at the Dokdo talk page? Or why don't you open a poll? As usual, I hear no replies on any of these questions. If Takeshima so obviously Japanese territory, why then, did Japan not take over Dokdo, drive a stake there and post military police there during "modern times". Japan had all this time, from 1910 to 1945. Why, then, did Korea build a radar station and a heli pad? Here is another fact that you can deny without any proof. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the UN and the US commanders designated the Korean Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ) to defend Korea from North Korean Mig fighters. Dokdo was included in the KADIZ and the U.S still uses this identification zone to protect Korea. Do you have anything to contradict this and any other fact that I have mentioned? No you have not. All you write is a bunch of stuff without sources and insults. Come on! Bring this argument to the talk pages on Dokdo. I have already asked twice now. If you can speak freely and loudly here, it must be the same at a talk page, right? Good friend100 01:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC) You must learn that "having the last word" doesn't mean that you win--often it means you've lost. In most cases, it probably just means that others have deemed that you have embarrassed yourself enough not to warrant bothering with a response. I'm not sure why you are so self-conscioius/sensitive. No one is insulting you or your country. As for sources--the sources you are quoting, as I mentioned are a) out of context (the islands were removed temporarily from the admisitrative zone of Japan, b) irrelevant (they were returned to Japan along with many other possessions), and c) plain wrong--while they were removed, they were not given to Korea. As for a source? Look up the actual document! If it's tought to find online, check your local university. Japan doesn't just have a right to Takeshima, it is part of Japanese territory as recognized by the UN and international law. Look up the UN designations for the island (check your local UN archives). I don't even understand your methodology of wording--would you say "the US has a right to New York"? It's just part of the nation, as Takeshima is part of Japan. Why did they build the radar station and heli pad? The simple answer is to try to establish an economic interest in order to try to steal the island. Of course, it doesn't quite work that way. If no one made a big deal over it for a few hundred years, or if Japan maintained a soft foreign policy they may have gotten away with it. Japan has been so far left for so long that other nations truly thought they might manage to pull off suck trickery. The nation of Japan, however, is now entering a swing to the right since younger generations are wondering why they have to pay for actions their long dead ancestors (may or may not) have done. Please, please read up on your facts. KADIZ has nothing to do with international law, it's set up by the US and is non-binding internationally for various reasons involving technicalities such as ease of managing flights and setting up regions for war. What the US military doesn't dictate ownership. The US said at the time it wouldn't matter which region they categorized it since there were no civilians. It's tiring to respond if you are going to be so argumentative. Why not say, "But I'm confused--isn't it the case that it's part of KADIZ? Why is that?" It has a simple answer, and it has nothing to do with the ownership discussion. Takeshima can be settled simply--why not agree to settle the matter in an international court? Japan has suggested this repeatedly (search Google). Korea does not wish to do this because it knows it would lose. The island simply isn't Korean from the perspective of the world. Why not take the debate to the Takeshima page? I got drawn into this discussion over the Yasukuni shrine--as this discussion clearly illustrates, it has nothing to do with Yasukuni. I have no desire to enter a debate over this on the Takeshima page, although I am more or less an expert on the topic. I don't want to debate things in an encyclopedia entry, I want to just add facts. Too many political activists are camping out on the Takeshima page hoping it will lend credence to their claims. Perhaps they think being "published" in Wikipedia will add some mortar to their arguments with crumbled foundations. I gave you a few facts to mull over and to research (not for you to just "fire back" without actually doing any looking up). Hopefully this might give you more of a global view. What's more, there are too many people who have your attitude--too many high schoolers and, worse, too many adults who have the same maturity level, who try to turn things into a debate instead of legitimately trying to improve an encyclopedia. I know you have made several good contributions to Wikipedia. It's important to learn that Wikipedia is a neutral platform, and you shouldn't be using it as a platform to vomit your ideologies, none of which happen to be unique or well thought out--just what you've been told--don't just go along with the crowd. Your comments on Yasukuni didn't evolve from a desire to know anything--they were simply of a kid trying to pick a fight from the safety of being behind his computer screen. At first, I really believed posting such an unrelated waste of time on a totally unrelated article might stem from ignorance (although unlikely, it was worth giving the benefit of the doubt), but unfortunately this talk page has proven not only how little you actually care or know about the truth, but how little you care about making a good encyclopedia. You have an opportunity to interact with real professionals and academics here--take advantage of it. But first, grow up. LactoseTI 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Did you actually go around and look for my comments on the talk pages?

I asked for you to take this discussion to the Dokdo talk page, not for you to return the same question. This is the fourth time. Bring your claims and support to the Dokdo talk page and raise a poll or something. If you believe that Dokdo is the rightful Japanese territory. I am not going to go into any mumbo jumbo and get attacked by my statements.

If you didn't know, KADIZ was set up by the UN and the US during the Korean War.

Since you use the UN archives to respond to all my claims.. On March 20, 1877, the Prime Minister of Japan reviewed the Department of the Interior (which is domestic policies) and sent an official document stating that "Ulleungdo and Dokdo were irrevelant places to Japan" to remind the Department. In Shimane, the Department ordered the deletion of the two islands from its map since they were Korean.

In January of 1696, the Tokugawa Shogunate sent a correspondence to Korea that it recognized Dokdo as a territory of Korea and forbade Japanese people to fish or land around Dokdo.

Hey! Bring this argument or your supports to the Dokdo talk page? Why are you not? I have asked you five times. You come out strongly in a high schooler's talk page, you must surely be able to influence the other editors as well, right? Good friend100 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised a 13/14 year old has a poor grasp of history. Incidently, it's grouped in KADIZ because if you are flying a plane, you had better know that you're getting close to an dangerous area. JADIZ was considered "safe," KADIZ not. Due to the political instability, you are taking a risk at getting that close to a politically unstable nation. Please learn to read. I have no desire to debate anything--it doesn't belong on the talk page of Takeshima, either! Of course, the comments you left above are also out of context and factually incorrect, but this is beside the point. I addressed earlier questions which might have been about legitimate queries for knowledge, but you aren't even trying to get a balanced point of view. I am willing to teach to a certain degree, but if you want additional personal instruction, wait until you graduate and then come take my (or any of the other thousands) of classes at the university level. If you really want to know more, I might suggest you act less argumentatively in the future. This is an encyclopedia. I briefly discussed it with you here to help you learn more of a global view. Wikipedia is NOT a place to debate. I know it's summer, but in just a few months you can join a debate club if you like. You are still completely oblivious to the point. What the heck does this have to do with making changes to a Yasukuni article. It seems that you wish Wikipedia was simply a place where you can make masturbatory diatribes over unrelated pages. It's not. You mentioned you can read and write Korean well; there are plenty of Korean only discussion boards (instead of encyclopedias) that might suit you better, if you wish to debate. Those people will gladly make you feel good about your heritage and tell you only things you wish to hear. The only "debates" on Wikipedia should be about what content to include. So to boil it down so a non-reader can understand: What addition are you suggesting to the articles to which you made edits? My suspicion is that there is none, that you simply wanted to pick a fight? LactoseTI 16:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) "I have no desire to debate anything" Then why are you on this talk page and why are you making it hard between us? You play dirty. Calling me names just because I am younger than you. I don't think you would like it if someone looked down on you because you are young and "ignorant". Words of mouth. Good friend100 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what "words of mouth" is supposed to mean (sorry). I am on the talk page to let you know your edits are sometimes inappropriate. I don't want to discourage you from contributing--I've looked over your contributions, and several seem valuable. However, I do want to discourage you from degrading the quality of articles. I didn't call you names, and I didn't mean anything in an "age-centric" way. Simply put, your position made much more sense when I realized your background. Rather than getting your shorts in a knot, why not think for a moment that the other party may have a valid point, and open your eyes before your mouth for once. I acknowledge that being young and ignorant (as you put it) is part of growing up, and I hope you continue your interest in history when you become an adult. Far too many simply don't bother. LactoseTI 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) "I didn't call you names, and I didn't mean anything in an "age-centric" way." "where you can make masturbatory diatribes over unrelated pages."

"Those people will gladly make you feel good about your heritage and tell you only things you wish to hear."

"they were simply of a kid trying to pick a fight from the safety of being behind his computer screen."

"You should open your own eyes before telling someone they have inappapropiate edits."

"When you lose an argument, as you seem to often, don't go run to administrator and claim that losing made you "feel bad." "

"It doesn't matter what happened in any Ding Dong/Ping Pong "Dynasties""

"Not surprisingly, you seem to have been blinded by Korea's engine of propaganda"

"Wikipedia is not a platform for you to spew your personal ideas, nor is it a club for you and your buddies to self-gratify by ganging up."

"I'm not surprised a 13/14 year old has a poor grasp of history."

How do you explain the above statements? You didn't call me names? Read your statements above. "Dingdongpingdong" Thats a nice insult to the Joseon Dynasty. You have no respect for another country. "Korea's engine of propaganda" Kind of makes it seem I am Communist. On the surface, it seems you are simply admonishing me to be better and writing down "you'll understand when you grow up" statements. But no. I can see those unsults behind them. Added to that, there are at least 3 or more insults to my age. You have attacked me on my age, my heritage, and my country's history. That is unacceptable to me. I will not let you push me down just because I am young. You didn't insult me? Read what you have written. How are those comments not insulting? You are not even sorry? I thought older people like you are people I can look up to. It seems that your attitude towards me has changed since you read that I am Korean. I believe you are treating me like this because you think I am probably a "Korean nationalist" trying to "spread the truth about Korea" or "how Korea is great" or "how Japan is a bad country". I am not a nationalist! Obviously I would be on the Korean side but that doesn't mean I have Korean ideals in my head. Good friend100 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I don't have a problem with Korea or Koreans. I believe you also used the words "mumbo jumbo," a similar place filler. Personally, I don't think you can really insult an arbitrary label for an era. Time periods/epochs haven't shown me much emotion. Again, never meant any insult about your age. I think you should be proud of your interest in history. Most of my students even at the undergrad level don't seem to care one way or another! Some of my best friends and colleagues are Koreans. While it's dangerous to stereotype, we often discuss the events that have led to the self-conscious nature many seem to have--bordering on an almost dangerous persecution complex/"little brother" syndrome. Perhaps being aware of such a trend might help you avoid being sucked into it yourself. If you still feel bad about this, why not use it as an exercise. I feel you have no reason to be insulted, you clearly feel you do. It all comes down to your "point of view," which is ironically appropriate given the entire motivation for the start of these posts. LactoseTI 03:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) And you still have no apologies, even if you didn't mean it? You should first think about how other people interpret what you mean. The above comments are clearly insulting and impolite. Now, I have almost no respect for you whatsoever. If you strongly believed in your claims, then you shouldn't have even come to this talk page at all. Since you are so great as an adult, maybe you should find your adult friends to ask what word of mouth means. Good friend100 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)/Archive1|1]]