File talk:FISHERMAN.jpg

This is picture Japanese fisherman　

「日本海に浮かぶ」ふるさとアルバム・西郷 西郷町合併三十周年記念写真集編纂委員会編 1989.3 http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BN13000905 http://www.news-postseven.com/archives/20121015_149204.html He worked for a fishery joint stock company in Takeshima, where the fishermen of Oki who were struggling to hunt sea lions are shown. The four Korean women on the right are who came to work by being employed from Ulleungdo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 101.140.165.192 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

本当に韓国人？

This is picture of Koreans who were in Dokdo. They're not Japanese. と書かれていますが，同じ写真が隠岐の島町：竹島についてと云う隠岐の島町のサイト内のページに「隠岐の漁民」として掲載されています。 本当に彼等は韓国人なのでしょうか？--宵月 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they are just taken to the island to make food, anyway, at least the women are actually Korean for they are in Korean traditional dress. Jtm71 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

Hello Caspian blue, due to our latest problems here with each other I feel like I should beeter explain my changes here in regard to your comment here):

I removed This is picture of Koreans who were in Dokdo. They're not Japanese. and added 1935: Japanese fishermen on Takeshima. because in 1910 Korea as an country ceased to exist and between 1910 and 1945 the korean peninsula and all islands between former korea and the japanese main islands were ruled by the japanese empire. In that time this island was officially called "Takeshima". On my home-wikipedia we call places (when there is no dispute) either by that name, which is in the language of my home-wp common or, when there is no own name in our language, by the official name. Therefore I added not "Liancourt Rocks" or "Dokdo".

However, I don't have a base for saying, that your edit is wrong or in some way inappropriate. It seems for me, that both of our descriptions are right (because there is no base for your changes as well), so I'm not going to revert it.

I also removed "Category:Dokdo", because there is no such Category (at least, Category:Liancourt Rocks is used in place of it).

That much for my explanation in hoping, that this will help not to "solidify" your prejudice/preconceived opinion about me.

Furthermore, here a suggestion: Why not adding, that they were Japanese (at this time) of korean ethnics? --Valentim (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

original content

Hello Historiographer, regarding your edit and comment here: I don't understand what you are pointing at. Could you please explaining yourself? Greetings --Valentim (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

More than 3 days of no reply: Edit by Historiographer reverted. --Valentim (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your latest revert

Hello Caspian Blue, you wrote: "disruptive POV pushing to include only Japanese name". Furthermore you said, this was done by me [1]. Are you sure about this [2]?

Furthermore, why did you revert to a linguistic more inexact version instead of deleting this particular information? Linking to Hanbok on en-wp makes also more sense because there is already a link to its category. --Valentim (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your omission of this diff is splendid. Isn't that your edit? Linking the article to English Wikipedia is more making sense is your POV. Please "give me evidence" to counter you allegation that the fishermen are Japanese. If not, your own deduction and edits only constitutes original research. Moreover, we don't live in the Japanese occupation period, so well, we analysize the photo in the current period and current scholarship, not the period. As for the person who claims to come from Russia, according to his user page on Russian Wiki, he worships en:Ito Hirobumi, so that tells many things. :-) --Caspian blue 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I only did not revert your edit, because we have/had an (ongoing) discussion about this edit above. Even I cannot appraise your revert as "good behaviour" (more than 3 days without answer), I didn't revert as well to show what you seems to miss en:WP:AGF. Well, here my reply:

"Linking the article to English Wikipedia is more making sense is your POV": Right, but doing not so is yours :-)

"Please "give me evidence" to counter you allegation that the fishermen are Japanese": [3] (political status from 1910 until at least 1945)

"we analysize the photo in the current period [...]": Agree.

"Elmor": Don't know and don't care as long as he does not behave like a Vandal or a "man on mission" here on Commons.

I still see two problems in the now used sentences due to the above addressed redundance of Hanbok as a link on Commons and as a Category. I still believe that linking to en-wp does make more sense. I also don't like the sentence in a linguistical way: It could also be understand that the fishermen are also wearing Hanboks.

Proposal: Using the sentence befor it was changed by Elmor [4]. --Valentim (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that Elmor, person like you would be a neutral party? Prove evidences for the photo itself. You have not presented any evidence for the photo. --Caspian blue 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Caspian blue, according to my user page, I'm interested in Ito Hirobumi's life, nothing more.

Elmor (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Elmor, you said Ito Hirobumi is even much important person than Nightingale. (what an amusement)--Caspian blue 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm really glad that I was able to amuse you. However, we are discussing the image now. A question, if you don't mind: do you disagree with any of these statements:

1) In 1935, Korea was a part of Japan and was not a sovereign state. 2) In 1935, the Liancourt Rocks were administered by Japan as a part of Shamane Prefecture and therefore included to the mainland (naichi). 3) In 1935, the Liancourt Rocks were officially called "Takeshima" by the Japanese government? Elmor (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have a great idea. Why don't invite all people who edit the pertinent files? Then, we can form a consensus easily. :-) --Caspian blue 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@Caspian Blue: Why do you ignore my link to [5]? --Valentim (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

In order to stop this War and to resolve matter in a peacefull way here on the discussion page I reverted content to last version before this war began and asked for file protection here. Please before attacking me remember to read m:The Wrong Version. --Valentim (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)