Talk:Socotra Rock

message: This article lists "Parangdo" among the alternative names for Ieodo, but in the article on Parangdo, (which appears to have been translated from the Japanese wikipedia article 波浪島) Parangdo is claimed to be "an imaginary island which South Korea requested to include in The abandoned territory of Japan". Of course, the name could have been used for more than one island, or one of the claims could be false, but we should really find out which. Rōnin 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, already fixed by someone else. Rōnin 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where is the source ? or is it Known by Korean ?--Forestfarmer 09:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question... Now that you mention it, there's no source claiming that Socotra Rock has been called "Parangdo" listed on the page. Rōnin 09:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha! The claim originates from the Korean wikipedia article: 이어도. That's certainly a problem. The Japanese wikipedia claims Parangdo never existed, and the Korean one claims it's an alternative name for Ieodo. Using the Korean Wikipedia article as a source and then refusing the Japanese one seems to be a breach of neutrality. Perhaps we should go back to having a separate Parangdo article, and instead include the Korean claim in that article. Rōnin 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.I reverted Parangdo.and added about Socotra Rock.Korean ambassador (You Chan Yang) said that Parangdo is in the Sea of Japan near Ulleungdo generally.I think that the position of the island is completely different.--Forestfarmer 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have converted Parangdo to a disambiguation page, reflecting the three uses which turn up frequently.  I have again removed most of the pre-existing content, which is both inflammatory ("imaginary"?) and unverified.  I would be happy to see that content restored (perhaps at another location) if it can be brought into line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutrality.  -- Visviva 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim certainly does not originate from the Korean Wikipedia; in fact it would be difficult to find a Korean-language page about Ieodo that does not mention "Parangdo" as an alternate name.  I have added one reference that came readily to hand.  -- Visviva 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called "double standard" in usual.--Forestfarmer 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parangdo]] 

message: Someone's been moving the article back to Suyan Rock (the Chinese name) and changed this page into a redirect. I've reverted it, and hope it will remain here. Rōnin 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notice; it seems like there might be some caching problem going on... At any rate, a shift-reload seemed to reveal a redirect rather than a full article. Rōnin 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please elaborate on how the article as it currently stands is biased? -Loren 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Guam is a separate matter, since being an actual island that juts above the water and has a native population, it can sustain a territorial claim independant of the United States's EEZ.  This rock, being completely submerged at all times, doesn't even come close.  Either it is in South Korea's EEZ, or it's in China's.  But anyhow, the page is only protected from moves, not all edits.  If you want to add your map and your citations, then go ahead.  --ZonathYak 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV forking 

message: I've commented out the material about Marado for now, because there is no explanation of how it is relevant to the two countries' emphatically non-territorial dispute over Socotra Rock.  If the content is restored, please also add an explanation of its relevance.  -- Visviva 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I've read the above discussion, and am none the wiser as to what relevance this material, or much of the other material that has been added, has to the article subject.  As other editors have made abundantly clear, there is no territorial dispute regarding this marine feature.  As a submerged feature, this rock is not subject to territorial claims.  Nor is it clear how Marado's status as "southern limit of Korea" would effect the EEZ dispute, since a) the EEZ is measured from each country's baseline (roughly the mainland coastline), and b) in any case, China is certainly not disputing South Korea's claim to Marado.  Please clarify. -- Visviva 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, can you find some evidence that this is verifiably relevant (i.e., has been adduced by the Chinese or Korean governments or their respective lackeys)?  I understand that it seems relevant to you, but I simply don't see the connection between the ancient marker on Marado, the plaque laid by a bunch of Korean mountain-climbers in the 1950s, and the contemporary EEZ dispute.  -- Visviva 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marado 

message: This is a great addition to the article.  Thanks to Yeahsoo for providing it.  However, I would be very grateful if some clear source information is provided.  At present the image description page simply says "author=Yeahsoo."  However, this map was presumably not drawn freehand ; it must be based on preexisting data.  I couldn't find a clear source.  Can the source of the ocean-depth data please be provided, either here or on the article page?  Thanks, -- Visviva 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I still don't see any source information on :Image:Suyan rock eng.jpg.  To be honest, it looks kind of like it was cropped from a commercial Chinese-language map with a bit of English-language text added, which makes me wonder if it can really be released under the GFDL.  -- Visviva 14:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental shelf map 

message: *** Now the Continental map is made by myself, background all in low resolution and doodled, meanwhile the distance map   has no  any source information,and might  might trimmed from  commercial global territory map, which makes me wonder if it can really be released under the GFDL. Plus it is against WP:NPOV, as it hints distance should determind the belonging. While on Liancourt Rocks, Korean support continetal shelf should be the key fact. I might consider  tagged it as , or someone can answer.  --Yeahsoo 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still the same copyrighted map, only the land areas are covered. Still a copyvio unless the original image is free. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly concur with Chris 73 above... just to clarify for others, the presumably non-free image we're discussing is :Image:Suyan rock eng.jpg. -- Visviva 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  distance map 

message: *1880-1890 Beiyang Fleet of China mapped Suyan Rock(Socotra Rock).Beiyang fleet mapping-Encyclopedia Baidu
The description is based on unreliable source edited similar way to wikipedia. Actually, the initial part which is referring about the rock is copy-edit from the Chinese wikipedia article. Another part, "我国自组建北洋水师以来的海图即明确标明有东海苏岩，比韩国早一百年" also does not have any citations. Even the Chinese wikipedia article is asking for the sources.
On the other hand, the referred page also has a description: "隋唐以来日本、高丽循海路来中原进贡的使臣和留学生，以及唐、宋、明、清历代东渡扶桑的中华人士均曾目睹过苏岩，并留下了文献记载，历史古籍确认苏岩属中国无误。". Why don't you bring the sources from Chinese history books first before relying on unreliable source? I'm interested in them. Jjok 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: *1880-1890 [[Beiyang Fleet]] of China mapped Suyan Rock(Socotra Rock).

message: *Which country owns the island? Because if either one of the countries owns the island, then the name of the article should be in that country's indigenous language, as per the Wikipedia naming conventions (i.e. Dokdo & Tsushima). (Wikimachine 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: South Korea does. Good friend100 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the boundaries of each country's EEZ is settled, neither does, so it would be premature to rename the article at present. --ZonathYak 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of ths status quo

message: The time-line is inconsistent in its use of tense. -- User:Kdammers 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History clean-up needed 

message: I have fully protected the article for a week, and restored the dispute to the state it was in prior to the current edit war. Please note that I am not saying that the pre-dispute version is correct...but I am saying that all of the parties need to talk about it here instead of edit warring. Any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: "1900: Socotra Rock is discovered by the British merchant vessel Socotra." Hm. Does this mean that the place had risen from the sea around this time? It is not very likely that Korean fishermen would have missed this phenomenon in earlier days. My Bing translation of the source does indeed use the word "discover," but I just question its accuracy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: * "Socotra Rock" -wikipedia / 17,500 results in Google
* "Ieodo" -wikipedia / 36,800 results in Google
* "Ieo Island" -wikipedia / 10,700 results in Google
* "Suyan Rock" -wikipedia / 4,370 results in Google
* "Suyanjiao" -wikipedia / 61 results in Google (overlap)
For that reason, I would move into Ieodo if anyone doesn't object. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This requires further discussion. Besides WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV is an important factor here. Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dekimasu: Then, you stop stalking me, and start it for all. :( --Garam (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Garam, I believe there were three moves in all that I reverted. I am sorry I did not contact you immediately upon doing so. The first was when I noticed that a title of a political party you moved to didn't scan in English, so I reviewed some of your earlier moves. This led to two other reversions, because I became concerned about your moves in relation to the first bullet of WP:PMRR: "The editor demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus." I would strongly advise you to assume that any name change related to a territorial dispute, like this one, is controversial. Although I have left all the other political party pages where you moved them, given the discussion on the Bareunmirae Party, I would suggest that you treat the Korean political parties as changes needing move requests as well whenever there is any chance at all that someone might object. Dekimasuよ! 19:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this move, in which you re-moved a page after your previous move had been reverted, is particularly problematic because it is contrary to the instructions at WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." Dekimasuよ! 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title