Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 15

message: # Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
# Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 and Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007
--Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

message: Guys, supervising this dispute has become a pain. I'm forever itching to just block the lot of you and be done with it - but then, who'd be left to clear away the rubble?
I'm now going to go dictatorial and impose the following new ROUGE rules here. These will be submitted to the Arbcom for approval, and unless they or other admins object they will be enforced with ruthless blocks, from today. Blocking will not focus on numbers of reverts made, but on cooperative and uncooperative behaviour in general.
*All uncooperative editing is strictly forbidden. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. If you have reasons to expect your edit will not be acceptable, don't make it. 
*Slow it down. If uncooperative or otherwise contentious substantial edits are made, they must nevertheless not be immediately reverted. Instead, they should  be pointed out and criticised on the talk page. Leave them up for discussion for at least 8h before reverting them (if you must).
*Naming lameness. All edits that consist merely of changing round the order of mentioning the two countries ("Japanese-Korean" vs. "Korean-Japanese" etc.), or edits that mess with the naming of "Japanese Sea"/"East Sea", are strictly forbidden, unless they have been discussed and reached consensus in advance. Such edits may be reverted, once.
*Blatant POV. Edits (like those sometimes made by hit-and-run IPs) which blatantly violate NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
*Edit summaries. All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that, although I believe the root of the issue is problems in the consensus building process on this talk page, and this is what needs to be addressed more than anything. Phonemonkey 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably got a point there. And I must commend you for setting a good example in your section (#Second paragraph) above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Future Perfect, I see very little need to "cooperate" on edits that have slipped in by their pushing instead of consensus. These were never agreed in consensus. (Wikimachine 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Oh, never mind. yes, please have those rouge rules in place, but please see the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Faking.2Fasserting_non-existent_consensus. The current version does not go with consensus. Also, I disagree nearly completely with your focus on me & Clownface @ Liancourt Rocks (it's a completely neutral version). Then clarify whether I should revert to the version prior to the dispute (b/c any new dispute must take place with the article in previous status) or if not what the rationale would be. (Wikimachine 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello administrator. At least, there is a naming convention about "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" by precursors, for avoiding edit war. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea_of_Japan_(East_Sea). So if Wikipedians remember it, a little seed of unnecessary reverting will be removed... --Nightshadow28 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New rules of conduct 

message: I realize some people might get excited about this, but I don't believe the term East Sea should be used in this article at all.  The proper place to make the point that Koreans call it that is on the Sea of Japan naming dispute page.  You'll note that the link East Sea itself redirects to Sea of Japan.  This article shouldn't take sides on the name of the sea at all.  Alexwoods 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article shouldn't take sides, but mentioning that there's another name doesn't imply taking sides.  There's a policy on this that's been agreed on for some time, under WP:Naming conventions (Korean).  The consensus was to mention the name "East Sea" in articles that are primarily connected with S. Korea, or Korea as a whole, or Korea and Japan.  In articles that are primarily connected with N. Korea there's a slight variant.  In articles that are primarily connected with Japan, with the body of water itself, or have a broader scope, it's just the "Sea of Japan."  The Sea of Japan article itself, of course, discusses the naming issues, and Sea of Japan naming dispute covers the arguments at enough depth to fully exhaust anyone's curiosity on the topic.  But just mentioning an alternative name does not entail going into the dispute. It's a useful piece of information that the Sea of Japan is sometimes called the East Sea. --Reuben 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, didn't realize that was the policy.  Thanks for clearing that up.  Alexwoods 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but of course, policy can change too.  Please feel free to suggest & discuss alternatives.  --Reuben 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to [[East Sea]] 

message: *The US special mission ambassador James A. Van Fleet was reported to the US President Dwight Eisenhower that the Liancourt Rocks dispute should be solved through the ICJ.(See Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East)
</blockquote>--Watermint 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a sourced example.  We can also have the Korea Herald article saying Korea doesn't want to go forward with the ICJ.  I don't think the arguments Good friend100 makes can stay, though, as they are simply original research and unsourced.  —LactoseTIT 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. I also think that it is the more nearly better. I am sorry to make it get confused.--Watermint 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for making up for all the supposed "Japanese POV pushing" with some heavy Korean POV pushing of your own.  "Anyone with any access to academic journal search engines will find that almost all legal literature on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute sides with the Korean side."  Sure - I'm totally convinced by your agressive, unsupported assertion.  Find that literature.  Let's see it.  Alexwoods 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. LOL.  Buddy it's fine that you disagree.  Let's talk about it.  Might be good to cut the sarcasm for both our sakes.melonbarmonster 21:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And also let me know if you have any opinions or disagreement with my comments regarding the ICJ.  As for academic journal articles.  I've seen plenty of papers that come out on the Korean side but I've never come across a paper that comes out on the Japanese side.  I've already looked it up so if you want to disagree go look it up yourself.melonbarmonster 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, the contentious changes that Good friend added a few days back still have no sources, and are somewhat dubious.  Perhaps it will be a good idea to format the ICJ section to just what is sourced at this point, and as we find additional sources we can expand it.  For the ICJ section, if it stays, as well as the other "argument" sections, we should be particularly careful to solely use sourced statements. —LactoseTIT 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to tidy up the section, but then realized there already is an icj section right above that was repeated much of the sourced details.  I then re-integrated them together.  I don't think anyone will have any problem with it.  If anyone does, please let me know. —LactoseTIT 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: United States opinion about this issue

message: This article is definitely not neutral. We should tag this article "neutrality disputed" before we do anything else.25pxlink= User: Kingj123Kingj123 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a tag generally is a reflection of some specific goals/reason for the claim, otherwise it could conceivably stay there forever.  —LactoseTIT 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please elaborate on your concerns so that they can be discussed. Thanks, Phonemonkey 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me start. "The South Korean government knows that taking the case to the ICJ will put a huge disadvantage against Korea in terms of political and economic power." Is this sourced? It smacks of WP:OWN. Phonemonkey 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see that someone's already removed it. Phonemonkey 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag for POV

message: I do not think that this rule is effective now. There are uncooperative editors who edits continuousry without discussing. And, the accomplished fact of the edit is justified. The opinion of man who tries to keep the rules is not reflected when there is no penalty for such uncooperative editors. Even if we want to discusses about rivert, it is difficult to take the consensus because uncooperative editors don't participate in the discussion. --Opp2 07:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: about New rules of conduct

message: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Wikimachine
More later. (Wikimachine 13:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just archived this talk page to eliminate wasted space.  Could you post this to somewhere else (noticeboard?) and give us a link here instead?  It has nothing to do with the issues at hand on constructively improving the article. —LactoseTIT 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, it's just a bit large b/c I have been absent for a while. And space is limitless in Wikipedia's discussion space. Or I'll see it as an attempt to silence the other party. In which case the other party does not need to engage with the other party in a discussion under the assumption of fair representation. Also, the discussion b/w the admin & me was deleted, it was not moved to the archive. (Wikimachine 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Machine, if you have a problem with my handling of this case, I'd be only too glad to share the responsibility here with some other admins. Question is just whether we will find anybody willing to wade into it (will ask over at AN right now.) As for the rest, the complaints department is thataways. (And yes, if you wish to do an RfC, I'll certify it myself.) Anything that keeps these kinds of rants off this talkpage, because they really disrupt what has otherwise been a fairly good process for the last few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, give me time to move this to somewhere else. (Wikimachine 14:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Dammit, I believe I meant to type Watermint, but while reading your comments here had your name on the brain, I guess.  Sorry for any confusion. —LactoseTIT 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New framework for discussion 

message: Why do you keep adding this source (kimura.gif) to the article? This only leads to an image of the map itself, and is not a good source. I removed it. Good friend100 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it might not be a good source, but why do you insist on reverting it without discussion in flagrant violation of the rules we have set up here?  We need to discuss before acting. —LactoseTIT 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I opened a thread on this before, and it was pretty ignored, and nothing was cleared up to me. So here we are discussing. Its not a good source, thats why I deleted it. You seem to say that it isn't a good source either, so what is your suggestion? Good friend100 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: kimura.gif

message: I want to bring up the topic of the administration box in the article. Japan does not administer the islets. We've fought over this before and the initial argument of the JPOV editors was that Japan "did paperwork" on the islets, which justified them putting it up. Also, they made a ridiculous claim that if the article presents that only Korea administers the islets, then it is biased. This isn't true. No media or internet articles say that Japan administers the islands too. This is simply a distortion of the definition of "administer" by several editors. Good friend100 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is just a conceptual confusion between the meanings of "administration" in the sense of "practical exercise of authority" and in the sense of "internal territorial classification", I'd like to remind people that there is no law of nature demanding you need to use any infobox at all. Infoboxes in Wikipedia are an over-used feature, imho. They really should be used only for things that are absolutely simple, factual and noncontentious. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there's a reason classical encyclopedias consist primarily of prose, not data tables. Prose allows you to clarify, contextualise and hedge things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is a way of clarifying in the infobox that Japan's "administration" over the islands is purely theoretical at the moment, then this should be done. I tried a while ago to tamper with the infobox to do this, but I am not familiar with how they work, so it didn't work. It's obvious that the infobox template was not drawn up with the possibility of a territorial dispute in mind. If we can't modify it to suit this article, then I am all for ditching it as Fut Perf suggests. But perhaps if someone with a better understanding of the infobox could make relevant changes to it then personally I'd prefer that. Phonemonkey 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been through this again and again.  Japan does administer the islands; see the template itself for some comments on what usage they are referring to.  We're talking about what administrative category the respective governments categorize it.  It's actually quite explicit in the template definition.  We could, I suppose, change the label to something such as "Administrative Categorization," but removing it is simply censorship. —LactoseTIT 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever the intentions were when the infobox template was being defined, they obviously didn't have a territorial dispute in mind. They assumed "internal territorial classification" EQUALS "practical exercise of authority". This article is an exception because this assumption is incorrect. I would be happy for "Administration" to be changed to "Administrative Categorization", but if the infobox is to be kept, there needs to be an indication that Japan's Administrative Categorization is purely theoretical. Phonemonkey 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proposal. I'll add a parameter like "additional_info=" to the infobox template, then you can put the Japan-related stuff into that parameter and word it whatever way you like. Would that be okay? It would entail though to put the Korean (regular "country" parameter) first, and the Japanese (with some special wording) second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly what I would have done myself if I knew how to change the infobox template. Phonemonkey 21:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See test at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Sandbox. Wording can still be tinkered with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks great, Future Perfect. I suggest adding "current administration" next to South Korea for clarity's sake. And maybe a nice dotted line between the two countries (oh the irony!). Phonemonkey 22:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, that means we need to take both entries out from their normal coding and cram them together into the "additional info" field. Possible, but I'll charge you one beer extra for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S. Actually, I'll probably not find much time working on that the next hours/days - but feel free to use my sandbox page for further experimenting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry to throw a kink in the mix, but I think this infobox looks like it could be interpreted as siding with one group over another to an outside observer.  For the record, Japan actually does actively believe it physically administers it and treats the Koreans as "guests." They regularly exercise their "right" to enter the territorial waters and perform studies, surveys, do physical work, and so on.  It is not simply paperwork.  My suggestion is to either a) leave the infobox set up in basically the same way, but change the word "Administration," or b) remove the content in a conclusion that we cannot present this complicated situation in a few words.  It might be different if these weren't just some rocks with a few dozen people on them, but as it is the administration is in many ways somewhat evenly split.  —LactoseTIT 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In the judicial precedent(Minquiers and Ecrehos Case), the ship's certificate of registry, the property tax and the tial are admited as evidence of the effective control. In the judicial precedent of Clipperton, it was admitted that the newspaper article by a French government was a display of sovereignty. There is a trial concerning Liancourt Rocks in Japan and is registered in the cadastre. However, these present administration acts by the two countries(Japan and Korea) might be invalid on the International Law. Then I think that we should change the term "Administration". --Opp2 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could it be as simple as just replacing "Administration" with "Claimants"?  It doesn't capture the whole idea that it is administrative classifications, but its simple and hopefully neutral. —LactoseTIT 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "demarcation" or "administrative classifications(Phonemonkey's first proposal)"?--Opp2 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am happy with whichever of those terms you use, but I still believe that it has to be clear that Japanese administration is currently only in its claim to administrative rights. If we don't do this, the most natural conclusion which one would draw from looking at the infobox is that the two countries jointly administer the islets. (I don't think the administration is, in reality, evenly split at all - Japan normally refrains from exercising what it regards as its territorial right, for stability's sake, while Korea is busy building lighthouses and taking tourists there). Putting "current administration" would accurately reflect the reality on the ground without implying that the situation is necessarily permanent (hence the word "current"). I don't think this would be taking sides, because most people would realise that any territory disputed by two countries is likely to be occupied by one of the disputants. What do you think? Phonemonkey 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point, Phonemonkey, and I would be more likely to agree with you if there was a real settlement or some "natural" administration going on here.  The fact of the matter is, though, that the actions (of both sides) are carefully constructed to give the illusion of administration of a place that really isn't big enough to be administered by either side, in a sense.  No fresh water, barely enough room to turn about, and both sides are having big press meetings saying that either they are ferrying out a bunch of flag wavers, or that they are unilaterally surveying the ocean floor around their territory in a show of administration, etc.  Of such a tiny place, the bulk of the true administrative work--the actual amount of government work involved, is not so different.  I would prefer to get a term in there that shows more clearly that these are just classifications, but I hesitate to suggest that one side is "administering" more than another since it basically comes down to original research at that point.  Both sides are claiming they are the only ones that are administering it.  Korea says Japan is just "claiming" rights, and that ferrying people out proves "true" administration, Japan says that Korea is just "claiming rights" and it's being nice by not bumping the visitors off the rocks while it does its own "true" administrative work both physically (scientific expeditions around the islands, for example) and at home.  Keep in mind that regularly entering the waters is itself a sign of both administration and soverignty.  Both sides do it, so it's not really just a "paperwork claim." —LactoseTIT 15:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Phonemonkey about the use of the word "administration," but I don't think that's terribly critical in the case of the infobox.  It's much more important that the first few sentences of the main text be solid.  If the infobox is really a problem, we could always go back to a version that only gives the names in several languages.  --Reuben 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I was a bit unclear in my previous paragraph.  I also concur that the word "administration" may not be the best and I would not be opposed to changing to to something else, for example "Claimants," or "Administrative Classifications," or the like.  I agree with Reuben that it's not terribly important, only a minor issue--a bit more so than others, perhaps because of the little flags (I know it sounds stupid, but I'm sure that either having or not having the little flags bothers some enough to perhaps introduce a bit of instability).  To that end, if we can't make it solid, we could dump it.  I also agree that the opening text is far more important. —LactoseTIT 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's useful to keep in mind something like the "principle of least astonishment."  Based on what's written in the first few sentences, an ISO standard encyclopedia reader should not be surprised by what they read a few sentences later.  This is, of course, a subjective judgement.  That's part of why I think it's quite reasonable to list the party in physical control of a disputed island first.  In the case of the infobox, if some readers will see the word "administration" and think that effective control is administered jointly, then that could lead to some astonishment upon reading the article.  Reading it again, it could be made more clear.  If somebody wants to tackle modifying the template, that would be fine.  Y'know, though, what this page really needs most is pictures.  :-)  --Reuben 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is your suggestion? I still think we should remove the entire box. And Reuben made a good point. Outside readers will interpret the information as if its jointly controlled, which is not. That, therefore is biased because it presents information in the wrong way. To us, it may seem ok, but to others its not as clear. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. Good friend100 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, looks like we're all happy with dumping the infobox if necessary. Can I make a last suggestion? It's to label the box "claimants", and to put S Korea first with a label "current control". What do people think? If anyone still isn't happy, then I guess we'll have to ditch it. Phonemonkey 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "current occupation" is better. --Opp2 04:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: Since there is no previously standing framework to determine the degree of prescription & description (i.e. basis of NPOV), let's make the framework be made in process of proactive and reactive submission of ev. For example, if one was to introduce a list of reliable newspapers for a certain POV, then it would be implied that a list of non-reliable newspapers would be needed. If the ev. in the whole do not indicate favor for one over the other clearly, then we'd need Rfc to decide on the basis of NPOV. This shouldn't be user-centered ev. but a collective jumble of ev. (Wikimachine 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell are you complaining about, Endroit. I made it clear enough by giving examples. This should satisfy you: New York Times (reliable) & Asia Times (unreliable in the sense that it's not a major newspaper, note that it's still reliable per WP:RS). Yes, Phonemonkey, NPOV is all in all about sourcing b/c Wikipia should describe not prescribe. That's where all of our policies derive from - naming (i.e. google search), etc. (Wikimachine 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the risk that the article will be POV is 100% in a world without any changes to calibrate out prescription toward description, you must take any alternative offered if it's the only one. In other word, you have both the burden to disprove the applicability and relevance of my proposed method & at the same time provide a better alternative. A single reason why something's bad is not a reason why you should reject it. (Wikimachine 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimachine, I still maintain that your "collective jumble of ev" is just Original Research.  There's nothing concrete there.  Besides, I think you're just trying to give some excuses for sidestepping WP:NPOV.  What a waste of time...--Endroit 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Wikimachine, we're not going to try to hastily patch together some new ramshackle "framework" for deciding NPOV just for this article, when there's a perfectly good one at WP:NPOV. Phonemonkey 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't sorry me, Phonemonkey, then we will simply take it up to the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can write anything you wish to the arbitration committee, but it's very clear they will not comment on anything but user behavior.  If you want to create or adjust a framework for editing, the place would be in the talk pages of the relevant policies.  My point is not to shoot you down, but failing to cooperate now in the assumption that all will be solved by arbitration is not a good idea since it won't happen.  Instead, we need to cooperate now, ourselves. —LactoseTIT 22:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikimachine, if the "lifeline" to my arguments (as you put it) refer to WP:NPOV, then I'd quite happily stick to that instead of some makeshift alternative you seem to want to patch together yourself, thank you very much. I'm glad to see that you too seem to be sick of going round in circles. Perhaps it's time for an RfC? Phonemonkey 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposals for framework of evaluation

message: I've updated some 17th Century historical information to this page
In 1695 the Shogunate inquired to Dottori (Shimane Prefecture) if Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Inbashu or Hoki districts where the Oyas and Murakawas of Yonago resided. The Shogunage inquired:
Since when has Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as part of Inaba District (因幡)and Hoki District (伯耆), become under these two's jurisdiction? Is it before or after the year 1632, when the ancestors was given land? Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction? 
Dottori (Shimane) replied:
Takeshima does not belong to Inaba District (因幡) nor Hoki District (伯耆). There are no other islands belonging to the two districts including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)
Here are the citations.
http://www.dokdo.go.kr/for/uploadfile/dokdo_know_eng.pdf
See page 38.
The next citation is from Hoon Lee's article found here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
See pages 13 and 14  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clownface, just like most arguments about historical records in this debate, there are two sides and interpretations to this data.  We should really discuss the changes here first.  As an aside, it is also a good idea to use the edit summaries. —LactoseTIT 13:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *伯耆国米子町人大屋九右衛門村川市兵衛と申者渡海漁仕候儀松平新太郎領国の節以　御奉書被仰出候旨承候
Do you understand the feudalism of Japan at that time?　It is not possible to extract it like this if you know. Oki island is not land of the Tottori clan. Takeshima and Matsuhima is not land of the Tottori clan too. It is land where only the take a passage was permitted by the shognate. It is natural that these islands are not Tottori clan's land because shogunate's land. --Opp2 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not a problem of the translation. You cut the document that showed that islands ware shogunate's land. First of all, you had not discussed like this before edit. Therefore, I will rivert your edit based on Rules of Conduct.--Opp2 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OKI is related. Is the name of Saito's book "Records on Observations in inba and houki state"? No. And, why did Murakawa report to the magistrate of the temple in Oki? --Opp2 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: --Opp2 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be a little more flexible. If you are offended by information that strengthens Korean claims, then you are in the wrong place. If it is that important to you that everything needs a counter-claim, then add relevent text. Good friend100 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need for the source to be in English.  Please check out WP:V. —LactoseTIT 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Data Added

message: Regarding this  Good friend100 02:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those Fixersfixers socks have been indef-blocked.  We'll see if any more pops up.--Endroit 07:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  do we need semi-protect 

message: Japan's Report on Chosun as been added with JPOV. It reads.
In 1869 a the new Meiji government sent a Japanese diplomatic mission to Korea to gather information and establish relations. Their report included information about Takeshima and Matsushima. It reads as follows: 
竹島松島朝鮮附屬 "How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima became Korean Possessions: 
Matsushima (松島) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (竹島) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this island. 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s but it now has become uninhabited.. 
Some Japanese scholars contend the Matsushima (松島) in this document refers to a different island due to possible mapping errors of this era.
This information was found in a publication called "The Japanese Percpetion of Tokdo During the Opening of Ports" 
Found here. See pages 7~8
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b3.htmClownface 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Report on Chosun Added

message: I have some relevant images to add to this page. Any tips on how to do this?Clownface 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tip number one would be to share them here on the talk page first, so we can figure out how to integrate them and if they are appropriate. —LactoseTIT 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to add maps to the image gallery

message: Japan's military involvement in the annexation process of Liancourt Rocks.
These images of Liancourt Rocks are from Japan's Historical Archives and detail the military activities of the Japanese Imperial Navy before and after Japan's incorportation of Takeshima. Korea asserts Japan seized Liancourt Rocks during the Russo~Japanese war of 1904~1905 and these maps detail this process. Over the next while I hope to improve the content of the data from this era.
Image one.
Vice Commander Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Japanese Warship Tsushima drew this survey map of Liancourt Rocks for the purpose of constructing watchtowers on November 20, 1904 this was about three months before Japan incorporated Takeshima.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map2.jpg
This map shows the Japanese Navy's underwater telegraph systems installed all around Korean coastal areas and islands and China's Liandong Peninsula during the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. You can see Dokdo was integrated within Japan's  
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-telegraph2.jpg
This version of the same map is labelled in English.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/telegraph-overall-map2.jpg
I feel these maps are a great addition and have never been made widely available before. Let's put them up.Clownface 10:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for posting them to the talk page first.  Could you find some acceptable source discussing/verifying what those maps are? —LactoseTIT 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the texts described on the map to the map page and updated the caption of the map section based on it. The telegraph map was published in June, 1905, after the Japanese incorporation of the rocks on February 22, 1905 (38th of Meiji). You can also see the text between the rocks and Ulleungdo as 豫定 (more clear on the third map) that means "planed". They also look still in confusion of naming of Ulleungdo as Matsushima, former name for the rocks. What a slow navy... It was a pure luck they won the war... Jjok 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is original thesis by Hori P10. Is it written as "illegal military facilities"? I cannot find the words. Where is the word written? By the way, Hori is not a scholar of International Law. In addition, the verification of International Law is not done in this thesis. --Opp2 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, word "Invasion" or "annexation process of Liancourt Rocks" cannot be used. If it is "Japanese navy constructed the watchtower", it is safe.--Opp2 13:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Opp2. It is Original Research.--Gettystein 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's all published stuff and in no way is this OR.  Check WP:REF if you're not familiar with this.  And Clownface, Hori's opinions should be added since it's published material. In fact excluding it would be an inaccurate depiction of his work. Opinions are fine as long as you put it in the article as referenced fact.  Editor's personal opinions however are a different story.melonbarmonster 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sources don't have to be in english. Good friend100 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Clownface, you are wrong. AMAGI had investigated the whole ocean area among Korea and Japan in order to fix the name for several islands. On those days, Many maps were imported from West. Also, the name of those islands was various by map. (ex. Liancourt rock was called "Liancourt rock, Hornet rock, Matsushima, Takeshima.etc.", Ulleung-do was called "Dagelet, Argonaut, Matsushima, Takeshima, Usan-do.etc.".) Therefore, the Japanese government got confused and dispatched the AMAGI to investigation. After that investigation, the name of each island was fixed as Ulleung-do is "matsushima", Liancourt rock is "Takeshima" actually. Simply, since Japanese government has officially abandoned the sovereignty of Ulleung-do in 1877, it doesn't have the meaning which investigates only Ulleung-do in 1880, don't you? I think that your interpretation is always one-sided. Gettystein 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S; In 1881, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has published "the Takeshima historical investigation (竹島考證)" based on this investigation of AMAGI. These book is stored in the National Diet Library (2A-34-3-1647).--Gettystein 10:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan's military Involvement on Dokdo through maps

message: Here is the 
diff. None of the edits are explained. Unilateral changes to the infobox which are still being discussed, addition of uncited comments about the S Korea's refusal to take the case to the IJC - if these are not explained here then these edits will be reverted. Unilateral removal of Japanese maps with no explanation is vandalism and should be reverted. Phonemonkey 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the edits are self-explanatory and reasonable.  Any removed maps should be restored although if they were just moved, it should be discussed.  I'll leave a comment on wronglove's talk page to request explanation.melonbarmonster 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wronglong's recent edits

message: I've added and cited Korea's documented complaints by local, central governments and media.
Upon learning the Japanese had incorporated Liancourt Rocks, Ulleungdo Governor Shim Heung Taek sent the following memorandum to the central government on Lunar March 5th 1906:
"Dokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp'o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, "We came to inspect Dokdo since it is now Japanese territory..." 
 
Afterwards the Daehan Governor Responded:
"Order No.3 by the Daehan Empires Governor  I have read this report. Their word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is  a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and action of Japanese people...."
The Korean newspaper Daehan Maeil Shinbo also sharply criticized the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima on May 1st 1906 stating:
"The Domestic Affairs office  stated  "It is not unusual for those Japanese Officials to inspect Ulleungdo Island while they were traveling in the area. However their claiming Dokdo as Japanese territory does not make sense at all. We find the Japanese claim shocking...."
This is again cited from Kazuo Hori's publication. The relevent text is found on pages 21 and 22.Clownface 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chosun's Documented Objections to Japan's 1905 Incorporation added

message: I've added this text and a header to give historical background and a brief timeline of the Japanese Navy's Involvement on Liancourt Rocks.
On February 8th 1904 the Japanese Navy opened a surprise attack on Russian boats Varyag and Korietz anchored in Chemulpo (Incheon). Their troops continued to advance into Seoul and after weeks of continued intimidations and coercion the Koreans signed the February 24th, Japan-Korea Protocol. The protocol allowed the Japanese to occupy strategic areas of Korea.
Immediately the Japanese Army and Navy began constructing military observation and communications posts on all strategic coastal and island locations of Korea. These areas included: Uldo Island, Cheju Island, Udo, Palpo, Wonsan, Jukpyeon, Ulsan, Jinae, Geomun Island, Baekryoeng Island, Ulleung Island, Pohang, and Pusan. 
On September 25th 1904 the Japanese Warship Niitaka was involved in telegraph construction on Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and reported "...Korean's call Liancourt Rocks Dokdo and Japanese fishermen call them Riangko.." It was also reported that "..the East Islet was low and flat, thus suitable for constructing military buildings..."
The Japanese Warship Tsushima was issued special directive #276 on November 13th 1904. It included three instructions: a)Inform of the test of the wireless telegraph communications of Takasaki Mountain along with the test technician. b)Survey Liancourt  Rocks (Dokdo Island) for its suitability for telegraph installation (not wireless telegraph)
c)Dispatch workers and materials for Matsushima, (Ulleungdo) Jukpyeon, and Cape Ulsan watchtowers.
On the morning of November 20th 1904 Yamanaka Shibakichi of the Tsushima surveyed Liancourt Rocks and concluded with some difficulty a watchtower could be constructed on Liancourt's East Islet. His survey of Liancourt Rocks was forwarded to the Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Department on January 5th of 1905.
The Japanese Navy drafted a plan on May 30 immediately following the infamous Battle of Tsushima and on June 13, 1905, instructed the warship Hashitade to go to the island for a further detailed survey. The Navy thus setup a plan for comprehensive facilities in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) including Ullungdo and Takeshima on June 24 of the same year. The plan called for (1) the construction of a large watchtower on the northern part of Ullungdo (nine men to be posted) and a wireless telegraphic station, (2) the construction of the long-pending watchtower on Takeshima/Tokdo (to be manned by four men), (3) the watchtowers of the two islands to be linked by underwater cables which are to be extended to the watch- tower on Oki Island.
Citations here.
http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/m3-2-b2.htm
http://www.i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html
Related material from Peter Duus' "The Abacus and the Sword" was also added. 124.80.111.109 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan's military activites on Liancourt Rocks Added and Corrected

message: Is it not a neutral description to say that the rocks are claimed by S Korea and Japan, that S Korea is currently in control of it, and that the rightful ownership of the islets are in dispute? Phonemonkey 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, I think this is fairly neutral.  However, for the sake of playing devil's advocate, and to try to head off criticism in the future, here's the nit-picky version:  The main point of Liancourt Rocks from a governmental position is the territorial waters and EEZ, not the actual rocks which are far too insignificant to be noteworthy (since they are far less than a percent of the space).  In July, 1977, for example, because of the high distance competitive fishing from other nations, Japan instituted a 12nm territorial waters law and a 200nm fishing zone law, specifically applying it to Liancourt Rocks, and subsequently fishing and survey ships have penetrated this zone routinely.  To that end, while South Korea protests their actions (as Japan protests South Korea's), S. Korea does not in fact control the full Liancourt Rocks territory (perhaps the actual ground, but that is insignificant--having a garrison guarding the only oasis in a desert doesn't mean you "control" the desert, especially when you have people you don't want wandering around in it).  Since this is the case, it is a bit misleading to oversimplify too much.  Put another way, the language of who has sovereignty over a region is somewhat synonymous with who controls a region, and this issue is particularly prickly since it is a good portion of the actual matter proposed for the court action. I'm not saying we can't simply to this degree, what I'm suggesting is that there may be more bulletproof language than this which could more easily stand permanently.  —LactoseTIT 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I think the term "Liancourt Rocks" do in fact refer to the actual rocks, and not to the sea surrounding it, I kind of see your concerns. I guess what you are saying is you are willing to accept "controlled by S Korea" but there may yet be room for improvement? I agree that the more bulletproof the language, the better, but at the moment all I can think of is that if there is a sourced mention on the article that Japanese ships routinely enter the disputed waters, we can let that fact speak for itself. (And on a lighter note, the phrase "high distance competitive fishing" conjured up an image of contestants with fishing rods lined up in a row along a tall cliff :) If only the rocks were that peaceful! )Phonemonkey 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heheh, I like that.  As for the language, something about physical presence on the rocks proper might be best.  Some (not I) even contend that Japan actually "controls" them, in that Japan mentions it refrains from "removing Korean trespassers and guests" out of interest for peace, and continues to exercise sovereignty peacefully through official protest, surveys, studies, etc.  I personally think that viewpoint is perhaps a bit extreme, but the absolute undisputed fact is that Korea has a physical presence on the islands themselves.  Thankfully, there hasn't actually been shooting over something like this for some time and so the issue of true "control" is less focussed on today, with most of the territorial dispute occurring without bloodshed behind podiums.  —LactoseTIT 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but even if there really is a tiny minority in Japan which claims that Japan is in fact in control of the rocks, don't you think that would fall under "tiny minority views" in WP:NPOV - "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all"? I think it is safe to say S Korea currently controls the rocks, given the fact that they are the ones who have a military presence and that neutral sources such as the BBC currently use the term. I don't think there is any net gain in using "current physical presence" instead of "current control" in the infobox, it just makes it into really awkward English for the sake of an infinitely tiny minority view. Phonemonkey 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, although I wonder if it's necessary to mention this in the infobox.  Other disputed islands pages (never seem to) mention this in the infobox itself, and by leaving it for the article proper we avoid the issue altogether.  If we agree it needs to be in the infobox, I agree with you, however. —LactoseTIT 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything neutral on any of this. Again, this is a perfect current example of "agreeing amongst themselves" (Wikimachine 23:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do understand that since we are all editors here that you are one of "them," right? As always, rather than leave a destructive comment such as the one above, try leaving a constructive one.  How would you improve on the discussed options? —LactoseTIT 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to imply that I'm not neutral & paranoic b/c I make the accusation of "them", you're seriously being "destructive". You can't say anything about it unless the question of whether my assertion is right or wrong is validated by the arbitration. (Wikimachine 22:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to imply anything; I was being very straightforward in my comments.  To quote myself, "As always, rather than leave a destructive comment such as the one above, try leaving a constructive one.  How would you improve on the discussed options?" —LactoseTIT 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your emphasis in your replies have been that I'm not being constructive. Consider how I might have limited amount of time to edit Wikipedia, and I've been burdened down to deal as efficiently as possible - where I don't have time to do "constructive" edits as much as to deconstruct destructive edits. What you call "destructive" is really a deconstruction. (Wikimachine 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A neutral description

message: There appears to be a double map image in the map gallery. In addition there are empty spaces with no images. Can the fine folks at wiki clean house or can posters here simply delete these areas?124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry, just yesterday I had to semiprotect the article against edits from anonymous users, because of repeated attacks from sockpuppets, otherwise you could now just go and clean up the maps yourself. If you're interested in contributing to this article, could I suggest you register an account? It's quite easy and fast and will make communication easier. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it now. The gaps were because of some references to images whose image files had recently been deleted from the server for copyright reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Mayhem!!

message: I'm considering setting up a gallery with Dokdo related images such as photos of the island and related historical documents. If anyone has any ideas or anything to contribute please do.124.80.111.109 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean an image gallery as a separate Wikipedia page, no, I'm afraid that wouldn't be such a good idea, we don't normally do that. Images should all be integrated in the main page. But if you could get some photos of the island, that would be great. I looked at flickr the other day, but they were all copyrighted, we need freely licensed ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about a related images gallery?

message: Does anyone have a photo?  That could be a useful inclusion in this article. JPBarrass 15:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. As I said in the section just above, there are some nice ones on flickr, but they are all non-free (search for "Dokdo", not "Takeshima"; "Takeshima" takes you to photos from some other little island). Might be worth a try contacting the photographers and asking for a release of one or two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you get a permission e-mail from him, you can forward it to "permissions [at] wikimedia.org" and make a note that you have done so on the image description page. Make sure he explicitly releases the image under a license that allows free re-use, not just use on Wikipedia alone (GFDL or Creative Commons). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: I have a question.
*Zen
*Liancourt Rocks
Why is the information bar in the ariticle Zen not in alphabetical order, but the information bar of this article is in alphabetical order? (If the argument is going to be about: Zen is innately Japanese, then pleas do not even start it. Liancourt Rocks is registered by Korea. Registration, and majority agreements are not the same). If we are really talking about NPOV, then let's make it fair for all articles. I apologize for the interruption in the middle of The Argument. Thank you. Amphitere  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have to apologise. In answer to your question - the two articles are not comparable. There is no POV issue regarding Zen, because it is not a subject of an international dispute. Phonemonkey 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical Order. 

message: Just goes to show how biased Wikipedia is... The changing of the name to "Liancourt Rocks" is the first step in it eventually being called "Takeshima". These islets are obviously Korean and currently administered by South Korea. So why don't the South Koreans have a right to name them as they wish? I wish rules were applied fairly here. But clearly they are not. This really tarnishes the image of the site.--116.37.83.152 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry.  On the surface it may seem like it is moving away from one extreme, but that doesn't mean it will drift into the other.  In fact, the moves, such as per the name, were done with widespread support of non-involved users, including several administrators.  I seriously doubt a name change to a non-neutral version (either way) will receive similar support.  --Cheers, Komdori 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is turning noticeably more and more Japanese... 

message: We have heard more than enough those Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order, again and again. Look, alphabet order!, alphabet order!, JPOV!, JPOV!, Senkaku!, Senkaku!....... Till when does it continue?? Enough is enough. 
As above mentioned, Wikimachine said that "I think that this is ridiculous. In a world w/o POV, nobody should be worrying about this...". I completely agree with his words. 
I have corrected the sidebar of Senkaku Islands according to the alphabetical order. See Template:Infobox Senkaku. It has solved altogether. Is it satisfactory? Please don't continue to complain no more. It's so ridiculous. --Gettystein 15:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good edit. well I think so. It is fair, and NPOV.Sennen goroshi 16:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay.Kingj123 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough of Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order 

message: I only agree with your opinion: Enough is Enough! Well, putting aside from your blatant offensive attack for a little while, well done on such the hard job. I truly give you a praise. You are acting like bestowing a big favor on Koreans. But that attitude is obviously wrong because you don't and couldn't own or govern this article at all. You or me are just one of the editors into here. We are in the process of discussing the matter from the different sides. If a conflict occurs, we at least try to discuss it here in a civil way, but your emotional bias toward Koreans only can make things worse. Of course the same standard is applied to Koreans.
From Koreans' viewpoint, Japanese consistently excuse themselves to justify their absurd behavior. Japanese haven't applies the same rule over the disputed territories. It is unfair and unequal, so that Koreans suggest to change the alphabetical order on the islands article. Maybe, the next move for it might be changing the name of the article in view of the talk page, which is really not my concern.
As for 'Koreans' absurd complaint', according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, absurd means "ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous" and having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" or "lacking order or value", and "dealing with the absurd or with absurdism. Well, I can't hardly assume a good faith in your comment. It is not at all likely to say that your assertion is NPOV. By the way, judging by the edit history, this article remains like this forever unless the real world solves the dispute. Until then, do best for both of the party. --Appletrees 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd complaints? Don't say such the offensive language. 

message: Two maps were removed without the consent of those on this forum. The images' source was cited as JACAR and yet somebody deleted them. Who is responsible??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownface (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Removed Maps Without Consent??

message: Don't break alphabetical order for the benefit of wiki community doing away with unnecessary confusions. Northwest1202 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work, Watermint. I'm totally behind Macgruder's suggestion. Phonemonkey 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Break alphabetical order

message: Does anyone have access to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw?  A search of law journal articles might be helpful. From what I remember all of them were pro-korean.  I see some already in the external link but there's more.melonbarmonster 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone with access to legal journal search engines???

message: Economy and tourism section starts from
"Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence, while thousands of Koreans do the same. (ref. Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999)"
I tried to spot the reference, "Roger Dean Du Mars, "Address Registration Revives Islands Dispute". South China Morning Post, December 28, 1999" though I failed (1 hit for "Roger Dean Du Mars" in 1999 written on 29th June). I think this reference came from Sean Fern's paper advised by Victor Cha in 2005 which describes:
"Flare-ups do occur periodically, however, as in the 1999 example in which Tokyo and
Seoul tried to register permanent addresses on the islands. Seoul reacted by sending a letter to Tokyo calling for “immediate cancellations of the registrations.” Tokyo responded by stating it “cannot bar its residents from shifting census registrations, as the island is part of its territory.”44 Despite this exchange of letters, neither country was willing to escalate tensions and each dropped the issue within days."
Would anyone give us the original text describing this part by Roger Dean Du Mars?
Anyway, I found the Japanese registration data in 2005 and is going to update the part accordingly, i.e. 26 registrants (not residents).
　本年五月一日現在、お尋ねの竹島に本籍を有する者の数は二十六名、お尋ねの尖閣諸島に本籍を有する者の数は十八名、お尋ねの沖ノ鳥島に本籍を有する者の数は百二十二名であり、竹島、尖閣諸島又は沖ノ鳥島を住所として住民票に記載されている者は存在しないものと承知している。
In addition, WP:LAME describes:
"Serious Wikipedians (of Korean or Japanese citizenship) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case."
Korean Wikipedians may be possible since they are so passionate and hysteric (they call themselves as a nation of emotion (情) with resentment (恨)) but does anyone know Serious Japanese Wikipedians (someone designated as a nation of logic (理)) who may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence? (Chinese? I've heard that a nation of relationship (義))--Jjok (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy and tourism: ''Thousands of Japanese citizens list the islets as their residence''