지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (7)
2024
2021
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The content is somewhat reliable because the source quotes are clear. Wikipedia describes Dokdo. The Japanese version of Wikipedia presupposes that Dokdo is Japanese territory. However, until now, many researchers have argued that Dokdo is Korean territory. It describes both the Japanese and Korean territorial positions on Dokdo. This study is not an argument for Dokdo’s sovereignty. In this study, we analyzed the right and wrong of Wikipedia’s notation for Dokdo. The purpose of the study was to argue against the wrong content.
First, Japan established the sovereignty of ‘Takeshima’ in the 17th century and incorporated it into Japanese territory in 1905. As for the sea lion of Dokdo, Japan engaged in sea lion fishing in a Japanese colonial era, but Korea eventually made the sea lion extinct after the war. Second, the incorporation of Dokdo was decided by the Japanese government and publicly notified by Shimane Prefecture. Japan claims that even if it is not a notice from the central government, only the local government’s notice is legal. Third, during the Edo period, Ahn Yong-bok claimed that Dokdo was Korean territory. The Meiji government said that Ulleungdo and Dokdo had nothing to do with Japanese territory. In 1900, the Korean Empire stated that it managed Dokdo as Edict 41. However, Wikipedia uncritically accepts Japan’s incorrect claim.
First, Japan established the sovereignty of ‘Takeshima’ in the 17th century and incorporated it into Japanese territory in 1905. As for the sea lion of Dokdo, Japan engaged in sea lion fishing in a Japanese colonial era, but Korea eventually made the sea lion extinct after the war. Second, the incorporation of Dokdo was decided by the Japanese government and publicly notified by Shimane Prefecture. Japan claims that even if it is not a notice from the central government, only the local government’s notice is legal. Third, during the Edo period, Ahn Yong-bok claimed that Dokdo was Korean territory. The Meiji government said that Ulleungdo and Dokdo had nothing to do with Japanese territory. In 1900, the Korean Empire stated that it managed Dokdo as Edict 41. However, Wikipedia uncritically accepts Japan’s incorrect claim.
목차
1. 들어가면서
2. 독도 영유권의 ‘지리’에 대한 오류
3. ‘과거 일본의 실효 지배’에 대한 오류
4. 시마네현의 ‘죽도 편입’에 대한 오류
5. 맺으면서
참고문헌
要旨
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0