Talk:Rusk documents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Rusk documents is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rusk documents article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Time line 2 Full text 3 Internal documents and External documents 4 moved recent addition from article for further work 4.1 Details 4.2 Background 4.3 Conclusion 5 Why did you delete a whole sentence? 6 Aesthetic appearance of intro 7 Opening paragraph 8 The dispatch from the U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo and CIA documents 9 Page protected 10 Independence day of Korea 11 International Law section mainly deleted

[edit] Time line

July, 1951. beging of Korean war cease-fire talks(face hard going)
July 19, 1951. request from South Korea(domain and to confiram continuing MacAther Line)
August 2, 1951. request from South Korea(above and claim compensation )
August 10, 1951. reply from the US government(Rusk documents)
(untried)September, 1951. japan decided to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. japan denied to abandon the islets (may be Liancort?) on the treaty.
(untried)November, 1951. The US embassy to Busan did lip service.
January 18,1952. the Syngman Rhee line was declared(begining of Liancort problem)
(internal)October 3,1952.the US Embassy dispatched to U.S.state dep.
April 28, 1952. The treaty of peace with Japan was concluded(independence of Korea)
July 27, 1953. agree on an armistice (Korea didn't attend signing ceremony)
Match 16,2005.U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island is neutrality. The Korean war could be rephrased as civil war of korean district of Japan. Liancort Rocks is involved in the war　as disputed aera. References 3 [2] is not historical materials but KBS think that in November 1951 is in the midst of the Korean War.Cease-fire talks faced such a hard going.--Forestfarmer 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I want this time line to be section.but nobody edited or commented. I paied such a effort.this would not be used.what was wrong ? but this adjusted time scale right.incipit would be wrong.--Forestfarmer 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Forestfarmer, I think that you should be post to the Article page this time line. Why did you post to the note page? --Celldea 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --Forestfarmer 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with moving this to the article. after it's corrected for spelling & grammar, & properly wikified, this should be integrated into Dokdo, because that's what the timeline is about, not this article. thanks. Appleby 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry and I'm not native but I don't understand your writing.please write concrate exsample .This Time Line include your writing and historical bacdrop.spelling is as source.--Forestfarmer 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your contributions. however, the timeline needs to be fixed before it goes into an article. there are many spelling and grammar errors. i do not understand it enough to fix them all myself. for example, what is "(untried)"? what are the question marks after some dates? i don't understand the "armistice (excepted South Korea)" part. do you have english sources for the information so that other editors can try to help? thanks. Appleby 17:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for concrate exsample."untrid" is no source.I can not found authority. armistice (excepted South Korea) is from japanese wiki page "Korean war".Korean president didn't attend signing ceremony and I worte so.if you thougth South Korea agreed on an armistice,I reedit that point.--Forestfarmer 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

reannounce:
Do nobody complaint to this seciton ?I will have moved this section to Article page --Forestfarmer 08:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full text

I corrected the Rusk Documents in the Article. and here is a full text. --Carl Daniels 03:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the full text as it's found on Wikisource and linked from Rusk documents. There's no need to have it here cluttering up the talk page for no reason. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal documents and External documents

This section deal with internal documents and external documents
Usualy external documents is not dnied by internal documents. Do you think so? --Forestfarmer 21:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this document shows non-binding negotiation discussions while drafting a Treaty, I would think that the final Treaty is what matters. In any negotiations, external documents can contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side. If you are interested in the true thinking of the parties, the internal documents would be more honest and accurate. Dollarfifty 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You think that the final Treaty is what matters but I do't know but If you would treat honest and accurate about Rusk documents.you should discuss this note or Treaty of San Franciscol or you made INTERNAL DOCUMET section . It is not external documents not to contain exaggerations, bluffs, threats, misleading statements, "salesman" pitches, to pressure the other side.I don't understand what you alleged.--Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"[2] Also there exist other U.S. State Department documents [3] as well as CIA documents [4] that seem to contradict the Rusk documents.",These two document not have soruce.I would edit and delete these contents by no source.Anybady source please --Forestfarmer 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If anybody say "source is KBS",Japanese media wouldn't keep silence.--Forestfarmer 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

announce:anyone argue above sentence.I would delete these sentence really.I would consider "revert" to be vandalism.--Forestfarmer 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moved recent addition from article for further work

i tried to clean up some of the grammar, but it's taking too much time and i can't understand some of it without time-consuming comparisons with the original source. i don't even know if this is necessary, given that the entire not-too-long source is linked. as it is, however, the writing is simply not up to encyclopedia standards, perhaps others can help with spelling, grammar, wording, accuracy, pov, wikifying, etc. thanks. Appleby 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand.　As for details and the background, only the fact is written using Wikisauce at least.--Celldea 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move? If you had any question, you post to here your opinion. I can't understand that the full text was moved.--Junmai 11:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the reasons are explained above. please let others fluent in english clean up the wording before restoring it to the article. thanks. Appleby 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please point out a bad expression concretely. It is not suitable to delete the full text. --Celldea 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I do't understand your writing but DO you want to say "I WANT TO CLEAN UP AND WAIT ALL"?WHO ARE YOU. --Forestfarmer 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Forestfatrmer, I think so too.

Appleby, is this description inconvenient for you?--Dent2000q 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Appleby,when do you finish to clean up .I think that it is about time may revert.--Forestfarmer 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details

The demand from the South Korea government to U.S. Government was three of the followings;

1. Takeshima(Dokdo) is added to the abandonment territory in Japan and it considers as a South Korean territory.
2. The legal transfer of vested properties of Japanese in Korea to the Republic of Korea.
3. Admit the MacArthur Line (*) by the Treaty of San Francisco continuously.
   

(*)The MacArthur Line: It is a fishery operation district in Japan that Douglas MacArthur decides when he served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP).

However, although the U.S. Government accepted processing of the Japan property in Korea in the Rusk document, it is supposed that the demand of the dominium of Takeshima and the demand of the MacArthur Line continuation cannot be consented.
Especially about the dispute over Takeshima(Dokdo), it has answered as follows

"As regards the islands of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The Island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea."

[edit] Background

While making of the Treaty of San Francisco, the following communications existed about the benefits of South Korea, between the South Korea government and the U.S. Government at that time.

• December 29, 1949

The Allied Powers makes the Draft Treaty of Peace With Japan(Treaty of San Francisco).

It was written in it that Takeshima(Dokdo) was included in the territory in Japan. (ChapterII Territorial Clauses,　Article 3)

• Jury 19, 1951 (See Requests From Korea Jury 19,1951)

Three demands of the above-mentioned were submitted to that draft by South Korean ambassador Dr.You Chan Yang.

• August 2, 1951 (See Requests From Korea August 2,1951)

The demands were submitted again by South Korean ambassador.

• August 10, 1951

The Rusk documents were sent by Dean Rusk to South Korea ambassador as a final U.S. Government reply.

[edit] Conclusion

The insistence on the Takeshima(Dokdo) owning right of South Korea is as followings;

• There is no description of Takeshima(Dokdo) in paragraph(a) Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, because of admitting the territory in Japan.
• The MacArthur Line decided by the U.S. Government is effective now. (This interpretation is the basis of the Syngman Rhee line was declared by South Korea.)

However, the Rusk documents shows that they are not correct. It is confirmed that U.S. Government thought that it is a territory in Japan. Moreover, it is guessed that the U.S. Government thought, "The MacArthur Line is not the one providing to the fishery operation district in Japan after WW2". At that time, the South Korea government recognizes that there is no validity in insistence. They required just because they recognized.
Legal vigor isn't generated in this document. However, paragraph(a) Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco should be interpreted, "Takeshima(dokdo) isn't an abandonment territory in Japan".

[edit] Why did you delete a whole sentence?

If you find expression which should be corrected, You should write here your suggestions. I cannot understand that you do whole sentence deletion of the report written by others.--Celldea 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

it will be obvious to any editor fluent in english that pretty much every sentence has grammatical, pov, accuracy, style, and/or wikifying issues. &, as i pointed out, i'm not sure if this is even necessary as the entire not-too-long document is already summarized here, and available in full at the linked wikisource. just in case other editors feel it still belongs, i have left it here for further work to bring it up to wikipedia standards. Appleby 16:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, you will only have concretely to point out a bad description. I cannot understand what you want to say because your opinion is abstract. That I'm regarding as questionable is whether to delete the whole sentence of the report written by others without consensus.

"Too-long, not necessary"??? I don't think so. Your description about this article is not related to this Article as Forestfarmer has pointed out. Moreover, you are not clearly answering to Forestfarmer.--Celldea 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the above content is not necessary, since the full actual document can be seen at the click of a mouse. The writing is ungrammatical and especially the Conclusion is atrociously biased. Dollarfifty 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This description is the summary of the document. Your indication is irrelevant.--Celldea 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic appearance of intro

Please leave the paragraphs as they are now in order to make the intro appear more aesthetically pleasing. Splitting the third paragraph ruins the balance of the intro. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I did a great overall improvement.the reason is as follows,

1. Opning paragaraph deal only takesima disputed.
2. Rusk documents have laege variety of meaning.
3. Korean and Japanese discuss only takesima disputed

because of above,I made the explanation of the Opening paragraph a minimum. and I made a variety of seciton. We would discuss here before to edit opening paragraph.--Forestfarmer 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

the previous version much better explains the context & meaning of the subject early in the article. timeline & restatement of the contents, which i don't think really even belong in this article, should come later. this is not even considering the ridiculous pov & incomprehensible grammar, which i've been begging to have fixed if you want it in the article at all. since this is such an obscure article, have fun blogging away and, not to be rude, but it is obvious you're practicing your english here. but please, please do not alter the introduction. thanks. Appleby 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your sentence.It is too difficult to raed for me.but

Do you read a My above account? Rusk documents have laege variety of meaning.meaning of This documents have not only Takesima disputed but also a Korean independence day,lee line,etc.and

"this is not even considering the ridiculous pov & incomprehensible grammar, which i've been begging to have fixed if you want it in the article at all."

Sorry.but you ONLY write Takesima disputed in opening paragraph ETERNITY.I would not like to edit like this.but you don't stop writing Takesima disputed in opening paragraph.why do you want to edit opening paragraph only?Japanese and Krean are editing only opening paragraph.

Caution:meaning of Rusk document is not only Takesima disputed.

and opening paragaph is not so long usually.you should think You should think about the balance with the body.

Do you fix my mistake?

it disgraced yourself when you had wroten unreasonable things. I felt that you are only working for wikipedia from your theory.

It is necessary to discuss more concretely either.

Appleby,You only write abuse and didn't reply my suggestion.you didn't write even the reson to stick opening paragraph.It is vandalism to keep reveting.and please call "Dollarfifty" to come here--Forestfarmer 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

apart from this discussion."Dollarfifty":you wrote summary "Per discussion".what is this meaning?don't write mere trash reason.--Forestfarmer 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason reverting it by Appleby and Dollarfifty. If the behavior hasn't stopped, it is clear vandalism.--Celldea 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this section in the discussion ?--Forestfarmer 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry .When "by" related to "It",I'm misunderstood.It maight be "I cannot see any reason Appleby & Dollarfifty reverting it ."I'm a foolish man.I wrote in the reflection. --Forestfarmer 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I mean that "Appleby and Dollarfifty always reverting without valid reason. Their behavior is clear vandalism." Anyhow, the article has been protected. I hope their vandalism will be stopped by the protect.--Celldea 12:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dispatch from the U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo and CIA documents

In International Law, only the treaty is effective. After the SF treaty, the United States is the same as the third country about territory of Japan. I think that it should delete these meaningless descriptions on International Law.--Opp2 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The CIA document is written, "Japan decided to abandon the islets after signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty in September 1951 ", and is unrelated to the SF treaty. In International Law, because it is only Japan that can abandon the title, the document about Japanese decision by Japanese Government is necessary.
2. The document of U.S. Ambassador to Tokyo is being written, " Therefore, when Japan Article Ⅱof the peace treaty to renounce "all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quellait , Port Hamilton and Degelet", the drafters of the treaty did not include these islands within the area to be renounced". It is confirmed that Japan doesn't abandon title by SF treaty.

It is neither the United States nor The Allied Powers that can abandon the territory of Japan. It is only Japan. The Allied Powers only has the right to demand the abandonment territory to Japan. I want the Korean to study International Law.--Opp2 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If other side's insistence was nothing,I think to be the best as It is.--Forestfarmer 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence day of Korea

The bit about the independence day of Korea is silly. Rusk is talking about the question of whether or not Japan relinquished all claim to everything other than its major islands by accepting the Potsdam declaration; it has nothing to do with setting the date on which Korea gained independence. --Reuben 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

my understanding is SK tried to become and behave as a victorious nation as Italy to avoid categorize as the lost nations, though the attempt was completely unsuccessful and ignored (as my knowledge, the UK strongly opposed it and as a result, it was the origin of the word the third nations (non-victorious, non-lost). Jjok

Do you mean Third world? That originally referred to non-alignment during the Cold War, not WW2. I don't really get your drift about "victorious nations" and "lost nations," but it doesn't appear to be relevant here. The section in Rusk's letter clearly had nothing to do with the date of Korean independence. It's simply not what he was talking about. He was only noting that the definition of Japanese territory in the Potsdam declaration was not intended to be final; other islands such as Okinawa were taken out of Japanese control at the surrender, but later returned to Japan. Korea was obviously already an independent country. --Reuben 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I found "the third country national" was a completely japanese term (and it is different from Third world). Korea was obviously not an independent country before the Victory over Japan Day and thereafter taken out of Japanese control and controlled by The Allied Powers until Aug. 13, 1948. Jjok

Whatever your opinion on this, it appears to have no connection to the "Rusk documents." --Reuben 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "independence day" is misleading. This passage is actually referring to the day Korea's sovereignty was recognized, not the day it declared independence. Korea's Independence Day is just as accurate as the American Independence Day (the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was of course not recognized by the British). Ashibaka (tock) 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Law section mainly deleted

I have removed much of the "Location on International Law" section.

1. It is unintelligible, badly spelled, and suffers from poor punctuation rendering it meaningless and better deleted.

2. It appears POV

3. It is missing citations

Particularly poor is "It is confirmed that Takesima is a territory of Japan by the draft on December 29 ,1949 and it is confirmed that Takeshima is not included in the abandonment territory by The Rusk documents.Because treaty is interpreted as the things that It is necessary to interpret triaty in the meaning of a word at that time."

This is clear POV, lacking in citation, and interpretation of international law, which I sincerely doubt given the level of English displayed that the writer is qualified to do. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to interpret law, simply to state it.

What is clear is that this is a communication, not a signed 'agreement'. It may state the U.S. government's own interpretation of their position, but under not stretch of the imagination can I see this document 'confirming' anything legally regarding any treaties.

There may be precedents in other cases such as the Norway / Denmark dispute, but this does not mean Wikipedia can say 'X is true because Y was true'. There are two many other factors that may render these two differently in a court case (who made the communication drafts, the claimants or someone else etc.) . At best, mention the precedent - do not interpret it.

I suggest these whole article is looked at carefully because it seems to me to be a 'backdoor approach' to the whole Dokdo/Takeshima problem.

Macgruder 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)