Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10

message: For previous surveys see:
# 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
--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, by those who entered English Wikipedia within a month and by IP address users are not to be counted.
<noinclude>
====Keep the article at Dokdo====
Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support local name used by entity in actual possession, arguably most common in English.  (No strong preference between this option and move to Liancourt Rocks). --Reuben 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support local name used by entity in actual possession, arguably most common in English.  (No strong preference between this option and move to Liancourt Rocks). --Reuben 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the article at Dokdo

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is my first option as it complies with WP:NPOV --Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the article back to Liancourt Rocks

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support It is Japanese territory.--Michael Friedrich 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Takeshima

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is a second option as I don't like a slash in a name (means something in a URL) and which of the two names should come first--Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to  Takeshima/Dokdo

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is a second option as I don't like a slash in a name (means something in a URL) and which of the two names should come first--Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Dokdo/Takeshima

message: Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, those who entered English wilipedia within a month, and IP address users. These votes should not be counted because they could be sockpuppets.--Michael Friedrich 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Votes

message: #Support I do not like the name "Liancourt Rocks" to be the title of this article because there are already established historical names while Liancourt Rocks do not have any cultural or historical meaning. BombAFT 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Votes for "Keep the article at Dokdo"

message: #Support sadly, per Kusunose and Macgruder Seoyoon 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for "Move the article back to Liancourt Rocks"

message: #Support I do not like the name "Liancourt Rocks" to be the title of this article because there are already established historical names while Liancourt Rocks do not have any cultural or historical meaning. I also voted for Dokdo!BombAFT 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for "Move the article to Takeshima"

message: The poll has been corrupted by sockpuppets. The 30-40 votes that have appeared for Dokdo within the past few hours should seem to be no coincidence, especially seeing that the vast majority of them are all "first edits". Obviously sockpuppets. Then there's this, which is blatant sock-puppetry (guess he should've remembered he already voted as User:Davidpdx while he was trying to vote again as User:Shkim4dl). When I have the time to file a proper report, I will. Then there's Cyboy7 voting twice in one edit. Clearly this poll is unusable, unless someone wants to go through and remove every single one-time-use "editor" and sock-puppet. This is a bit telling though; the issue starts to go against the Dokdo side, and out roll the sock puppet brigades. Very interesting indeed. Parsecboy 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the votes were probably cast by a popular Korean Website Naver.com user who read the Chosun Ilbo's news article.Motivr 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like you? Your first edit to en.wikipedia was to vote in this article, even though your account was created almost a year ago. Sounds a little fishy, if you ask me. Parsecboy 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. First of all, it is not my first edit. I've had another wikipedia account, and I re-created. And I don't usually log in wikipedia because most of the pages are editable without having to log in. Second of all, I do not think all of the votes were done by socketpuppets. Even if they were first-time users, at least they have rights to express their opinions. just like other users. You should instead blame Naver or the newspaper for the mess.Motivr 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's lucky you had created your account far enough back (without editing anything) to be able to add your vote to the (now meaningless stage) of the poll.  The page is currently semi-protected for the disruption these users caused and is going through a few spasms as those who are able to dust off pre-aged accounts come out of the woodwork.  --Cheers, Komdori 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously socks. Most of the users were created 2-3 weeks ago, to "age" them to get around a partial protection after the initial surge of sock puppets. You forget that Davidpx was negligent enough to expose himself. First time users don't make a beeline for a poll on a controversial but obscure topic. As for you, your account logs speak for themselves. You can say anything you wish, I can choose to believe or not believe you, because you have no proof. I could ask what IP you edit under regularly. You could just as easily pull a random IP or an IP from a local library or school. Parsecboy 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that some of you are very annoyed because this page is getting too much attention then it should. I deeply apologize I didn't edit anything before editing this article.(well, under this account)Motivr 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motivr, thanks for you comment. For many of us, the main issue is 'true' English use. In other words what encyclopedias and media actually call the islands. This is Wikipedia Naming Policy. It important to remove things like 'Takeshima is the name in Japanese, and Dokdo is the name in English' from these counts. From this reasoning some of us feel that Liancourt Rocks turns out to be the most common choice. It's actually not too difficult to check this yourself by going to encyclopedias and news websites. If after checking these out you feel Dokdo is more common in English usage, then fair enough. Macgruder 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I now understand that many of the votes were invalid not only due to they were first-time edit, but also they were unaware of the naming policy. Motivr 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not too much of a problem. All the obvious ones can be removed from the count. Most of the comments say things that are totally nothing to do with Wikipedia naming policy, are unsigned, or give no reason beyond. As above. Those can be removed too because if you are saying 'as above' then you are agreeing with the ones that are outside naming policy. This probably would not apply to the early 'as above' comments. Macgruder 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have moved your vote for Takeshima to Invalid Votes as it certainly violates NPOV. I think you should first take a look at this article before anything. WP:NPOV--JWC 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving it back. Michael Friedrich can express any opinion he wishes in the survey. The whole point of the survey is to try to reach a compromise that everyone can live with. I think it is unfortunate that people are polarising on just two options without supporting simultaneously other options which might lead to a compromise. For example as the Dokdo supporters are now in a minority, I would have thought that expressing  simultaneous suport for Dokdo/Takeshima would be in their interest. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my vote were to be moved to "Invalid Votes", all of the votes for Dokdo would be moved to "Invalid Votes" because they certainly violates NPOV. I believe "Liancourt Rocks" is the most NPOV. This is English wikipedia. It does not matter whether the Koreans of the Japanese know the word "Liancourt Rocks" or not. Even CIA uses "Liancourt Rocks" in its documents. "Liancourt Rocks" is suitable for English Wikipedia. --Michael Friedrich 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If I'm not mistaken, the page is still semi-protected.  There hasn't really been any flood by any group of editors since that got turned on (at least, not like when that news article first hit this unprotected page).  I don't see any increase in the number of invalid/non-established editors voting for Liancourt Rocks... on what are you basing your idea? (After re-reading, I think perhaps I misunderstood your comment, maybe you were commenting on the fact that the Liancourt Rocks option hasn't experienced the same level of flooding yet as the Dokdo option, which may be due to the semi-protection.  It was extended, incidently, so don't look for a flood on any option to start for a bit).  --Cheers, Komdori 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously POV, saying that the number of votes for "Liancourt Rocks" is ok. One user has voted twice and almost all the new editors have not been participating in Wikipedia and have made very few edits before. Good friend100 17:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now watch the good faith.  Are you saying that since a large number of established editors happened to vote for an option you don't support that it's obviously incorrect?  Please point out editors who have less than 50 edits or are duplicates.  Sorry, I didn't see a duplicate, I'll look again, though it would have just been simpler if you stated who it was rather than just make a bad faith assumption about me knowing it and not doing anything about it. --Cheers, Komdori 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see that any have been removed since you posted.  You made it sound like I knew about a duplicate vote and did nothing, but I guess in reality there was no duplicate vote when you posted.  Single purpose accounts are still being moved from both sides as they trickle in.  I'm sorry I just don't see the source of the obvious bile. --Cheers, Komdori 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably don't. I am ending this discussion because we cannot regard the poll to assert anything. As Mr. Parsecboy said, its ruined. Good friend100 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not so, evidently the same issues had to be dealt with last time around, although they originated from some Japanese editors that time.  We can also evaluate the arguments being made.  As the notice says, "This is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether the name of this page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and decisions to move articles are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." --Cheers, Komdori 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This poll is ruined

message: I have some serious concerns about the timing and method of which this poll was put up. While I have not been a regular contributor for the last year or so, I still am around occasionally to see what's going on. The main reason I don't use Wikipedia anymore is BECAUSE of the POV fights, which I frankly get sick of because they are counter productive to this project.
As was mentioned above, the poll most likely will have problems with sockpuppets voting multiple times. The person who posted the poll is depending upon the arbitrary decision of whichever admin closes this. Frankly it leaves much to be said that it leaves it open to the possiblity of abuse on both sides. 
Also as someone who has participated in other discussions about changing articles (ie deletion) I find people often try to jab at other's comments by putting degrading comments in an attempt to counteract a person's vote. Just some things to think about. Davidpdx 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope Appleby is not operating sock fleet anymore. Jjok 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's my sincere hope that weren't not just targeting Korean users, but also checking Japanese users as well. Certainly someone needs to make sure neither side is pulling crap. Davidpdx 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't on-going checkuser cases, as I understand, but ones from over a year ago. The NekoNekoTeacher case is a "Japanese side", Jjok and Komdori are included there, but were determined to be unrelated users. Parsecboy 11:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about changing name of Dokdo Article 

message: Macgruder, why did you not include "Tok Islets", "Dok Islets", "Tok Island", "Dok Island" variations? (Wikimachine 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I thought I just copied and pasted your link. I've redone it to make sure it is correct. It now has 21500 (another 200) Macgruder 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's why we make sure to not search for Takeshima alone.  See the discussions of Google below, where we've made sure to eliminate those issues. --Cheers, Komdori 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments Initial

message: *Dokdo: 877
* Takeshima: 495
*Liancourt Rocks 290
====Dokdo Manual counts====
*7312204200002252001001131001101201133010
* 211011101110
====Takeshima Manual counts====
* 3 1220021221
====Liancourt Rocks Manual counts====
*1010967712243100000000000000
====Total manual counts====
*Dokdo: 63
*Takeshima: 16
*Liancourt Rocks: 62
====Conclusion====
*Dokdo had mostly foreign documents.
*Takeshima had mostly foreign names.
*Liancourt was either from the early 20th century describing the Russo-Japanese War & foreign documents. 
(23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, don't forget Liancourt Rocks, which might be more pertinent than Takeshima in many minds. --Cheers, Komdori 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. (Wikimachine 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The search already excludes non-English results. (Wikimachine 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you missed the point.  If an English source says, "This place is known as Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)," and so on, it does not count as a hit for Dokdo, per policy and common sense. --Cheers, Komdori 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed my explanation for why dual usage =/= false positive. (Wikimachine 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, I saw it.  Apparently you didn't see the quote immediately above this from the False Positive guideline where they explicitly say that if the occurence of "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)" is a false positive for Dokdo (or Takeshima). --Cheers, Komdori 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Google Book Search

message: *Dokdo had mostly foreign documents.
*Takeshima had mostly foreign names.
*Liancourt was either from the early 20th century describing the Russo-Japanese War & foreign documents. 
(23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, don't forget Liancourt Rocks, which might be more pertinent than Takeshima in many minds. --Cheers, Komdori 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. (Wikimachine 23:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The search already excludes non-English results. (Wikimachine 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you missed the point.  If an English source says, "This place is known as Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)," and so on, it does not count as a hit for Dokdo, per policy and common sense. --Cheers, Komdori 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed my explanation for why dual usage =/= false positive. (Wikimachine 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, I saw it.  Apparently you didn't see the quote immediately above this from the False Positive guideline where they explicitly say that if the occurence of "Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo in Korean)" is a false positive for Dokdo (or Takeshima). --Cheers, Komdori 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: To help people understand a bit about statistics here is a very basic primer. When you decide to test something called a hypothesis one common way is to get a sample. A sample is a cross-section of the population. For example, leading up to the U.S. elections Gallup would ask 1000 people how they were going to vote. From this sample they would then publish a number like 48% Bush, 46% Kerry.
However, a sample may not represent the actual population. The most common problem is that the sample is not exactly the same as the population itself. In other words, how do you choose who to ask? Phone everyone at home at 3pm and you are going to get people who are at home at 3pm and thus bias the sample! Gallup and other organisations are very carefully to reduce these problems but they are still aware that the result is not perfect. So they always say 'with a margin of error of 5%' or something like that. It doesn't matter if they counted perfectly because the problem is with the sample not the count. (Why not just ask 10000 people? Interestingly it doesn't help much because sampling error depends on the square root of the sample size.)
This means a single sample is NEVER a perfect representation of the population. How does that apply to our Google test?
Well, the latest test we have done has 2 basic issues:
*We chose the words 'dispute' - this will introduce an unknown bias
*We are using Google - we cannot be sure Google has trawled every page on the web, and done so equally.
This means our test has a margin of error like all tests. How much is it? Well, that is the question. We don't know because we only did one test. So we know our test is not perfect whoever does it and however we count the results. If our test had produced a decisive result than we could probably agree that it was a good indication of the web on the whole. Unfortunately, our test gave a close result within about 10%. With all the inherent problems of any sample it doesn't tell us much one way or the other. Remember Zogby and Gallup after doing thousands of tests and being experts in their field still have a margin of error of 5% on a carefully constructed sample. We will not get close to that kind of accuracy. 
One decisive result the test did produce was that about 95% of pages had both names. This should tell us something. Macgruder 04:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting this 3,000?  We're not arguing about whether Takeshima is ahead or not.  We're arguing that statistically speaking it's relatively close to being a tie, being about the same.  How close do Google's estimates (based on their own sampling) have to be for you to call it a tie?  Within 10% of each other?  No?  Then what?  --Cheers, Komdori 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics 2-Proportions Z test was performed to ascertain the accuracy of the Google tests. The Google search itself already affirms which has more results than the other. (Wikimachine 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which just confirms you don't know much about stats. The Z-stats confirm the accuracy of the sample not the relationship between sample and population - read 101 again. Parroting words that you don't understand is not helpful. EVERY test has a margin of error.Macgruder 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sure it affirms the basica fact that neither have more statistically speaking.  Are you going to say that Dokdo overwhelmingly outnumbers Takeshima based on a 10% dubious margin?  Try adding "Take Islands," you get another 100 more results added. --Cheers, Komdori 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 101 [aka why it's a tie] 

message: Before I say anything, let me emphasize this. When I performed manual sample gathering on the Google sites designated by the RandInt function on the Ti-84 plus, well, I had to go through lots of pages and sites that were not in the samples specified... however I still got to look through them. And you know what? I saw that very close to all of them were relevant. Actually, there was only one irrelevant site that I remember and it was somewhere around the second to the last page of Takeshima search. But that was the only one. That's why I am quite confident in deciding that the Google search is flawless & might have a rounding error of 1~2 irrelevant sites.
Second, Google search shows the most relevant in the front, and the least relevant to the back. When even the last pages of Google search for both terms showed relevant results overall (except that one Takeshima hit), I'm quite sure that there's no way that 3,000 sites for Dokdo are irrelevant in the real population. It's impossible statistically & the statistics should show some sign of that. I myself saw 0... let me repeat. 0 irrelevant sites for Dokdo while navigating through Google.
Now, only use for Macgruder in making this statistics 101 argument is if Dokdo indeed has some 3,000 irrelvant sites in the real population & therefore through further testing Takeshima gains the lead (it's currently behind by 2,000). But when it is statistically impossible, and I myself have seen many of the results myself while gathering the SRS, arguing this is a waste of time. (Wikimachine 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting this 3,000?  We're not arguing about whether Takeshima is ahead or not.  We're arguing that statistically speaking it's relatively close to being a tie, being about the same.  How close do Google's estimates (based on their own sampling) have to be for you to call it a tie?  Within 10% of each other?  No?  Then what?  --Cheers, Komdori 17:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics 2-Proportions Z test was performed to ascertain the accuracy of the Google tests. The Google search itself already affirms which has more results than the other. (Wikimachine 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which just confirms you don't know much about stats. The Z-stats confirm the accuracy of the sample not the relationship between sample and population - read 101 again. Parroting words that you don't understand is not helpful. EVERY test has a margin of error.Macgruder 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sure it affirms the basica fact that neither have more statistically speaking.  Are you going to say that Dokdo overwhelmingly outnumbers Takeshima based on a 10% dubious margin?  Try adding "Take Islands," you get another 100 more results added. --Cheers, Komdori 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Statistics 102'''

message: I know it's far from the votes by now in terms of distance, but hopefully someone will still see--unfortunatgely there seem to be a lot of bad votes for Dokdo where the idea that "who controls" it determines the common name.  There is no such policy, and binding this article and another together (eg Senkaku) would essentially make it impossible to move either back alone if they were both erroneously placed per this non-policy (if you tried to move that one, they'd point here, and if you try to move this one, they point there).  In fact, that idea of physical control is not the guiding principle.  If you strongly believe that other aticles are where they are because of control issues, then I sincerely hope you go there and start a discussion to move them.  --Cheers, Komdori 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a great example, look at an erroneous vote for Dokdo--West Bank is controlled by Israel who calls it Judea and Samaria.  It is where it is per common usage and its status as an English name.  --Cheers, Komdori 11:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I add to my handy dandy guide the JPOV editors (I'm writer JPOV & KPOV out of convenience) try to incriminate KPOV editors & invalidate their votes? I really don't like it. You guys already tried to incriminate me (probably more reliable than most here), Davidpdx, and few others. (Wikimachine 16:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the JPOV section would be small.  There are hardly any people promoting the Japanese name.  Perhaps EPOV for English point of view? —LactoseTIT 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Many media already agree that Japan's main goal is not to change the island's name into Takeshima but emphasize only Liancourt Rocks to suggest a disputed status over the island. (Wikimachine 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimachine, you do have a good point. Certainly Parceboy was quick to jump on my back and accused me of being having sockpuppets and then turn around and defend what he said, claiming he wasn't uncivil with me. The funny thing is he ran to Komdori to tell him that I had a bunch of socks and Komdori defended him both on a talk page AND in a complaint I filed with the admins. To me, that is suspicuous in itself. Davidpdx 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binding this RM 

message: To all editors for Liancourt Rocks, you keep talking about respected sources, but according to your edits they are just some english or american encyclopedias who use Liancourt Rocks for those islets. When did they set the term Liancourt Rocks for those islets and in terms of what did they do so? Do they reflect contemporary trends at all? One thing to make clear is, english WP is not for the American, the English, or the Australian only. It should reflect english spoken or written world, which is practically everywhere in the world. Then what is the most common and comtemporary term for those islets in English? You might have known it already, but generally english names for islands and some regions in Asia in general were given when the English (or European) expanded their imperial territories in the 18, 19th centuries. 
Do you think the term is still widely used in english spoken or written world? It depends on what is english spoken or written world. Most of those english names from the era are not used anymore now that they receded and began to respect what those objects were locally called. Liancourt Rocks is just one of many those legacy terms. One more thing to mention is, nobody in America, UK, or Australia does care about or have right to how the islets should be called. As a result and as a matter of fact, the term Liancourts Rocks is being used less and less, only to find in those 'respected' english encyclopedia where they just continued to use what they used from those old days. If you accept that english WP is not for only UK, America, or Australia, you need to consider that english journals or materials in Asia, especially in Japan and Korea generally call those islets Dokdo or Takeshima only as they reflect more compemporary names for those islets. They don't bother to include Liancourt Rocks as they don't need to explain the legacy of imperialistic history ragarding those islets. If they do include Liancourt Rocks, it is just a redundancy or at best a courtesy for some western people who might happen to have interst for those islets for whatever reason. For western media, normally they don't have any reason to deal with those islets unless they get some news from english written journals from Asia. As a result, you end up with Dokdo or Takeshima in english written materials more and more as those are main sources for english name for those islets in the modern world, not in those old fashioned encyclopedia. 
So your apparently simple and obvious insistence for Liancourt Rocks is not obvious at all and the name cannot be used for the title. By the way, it is kind of insult for those local people still to have Liancourt Rocks as the english name for those islets considering all those histories of the names and considering most of other objects in the similar situation don't have those english names from those old days. If you still think that Liancourt Rocks is the most common and comtemporary english term for those islets, it is not a fact, but due to your ignorance. Those days are gone long time ago. Ginnre 05:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be repetitive, but it's not just American or British encyclopedias, but also things like the UN official list of territories (updated in the last few years) as well as many contemporary English language articles throughout the English speaking world.  I agree we perhaps shouldn't base a decision solely on US and UK usage, but surely you aren't suggesting that the US and UK don't represent a large portion of the English speaking world? --Cheers, Komdori 12:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he means is that there are many english speakers not just in the US or UK. Of course the majority of english speakers would probably be in USA, UK or Australia. Good friend100 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: UN is just one thing.Kingj123 22:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To those for Liancourt Rocks 

message: *There is a difference between loyalty and POV.
*there is a difference between truth and POV.
Kingj123 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think UN is internatiolan law? The United Nations is not a lawmaking organ of International Law. A one-sided occupation in which another country protests can't become grounds. You should study critical date and territorial title of real International Law.--Opp2 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think UN is not connected to international law at all at any means? Think again.
Let me emphasize this again, Opp2, since you do not understand what I am saying.
Japan has nothing to say beyond international laws.
                                   True or False?
You still didn't answer my questions, but commenting on them.
*Is that a moral perspective to justify the honest ownership of Dokdo? 
*Is UN's way the only right way, to judge the the ownership and sovereignity of Dokdo islets? 
*Is it right to just focus on international law for Dokdo Article? 
*And neutrally speaking, which country would gain free benifit? 
*Any proof of UN's immediate response to Korean sovereignity, any effort from UN to stop SK patrols? 
Answer these questions clearly. Kingj123 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is meaningless if you emphasizes. Because these questions are unrelated to real International Law and show that you don't know international law at all.--Opp2 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things about Dokdo: