Talk:Japanese sea lion

message: There weer older edit histories for this article that seems to be missing for some reason.  I personal made edits and added references and in the edit history it's not there.  Seems like older article was deleted and this new one started for some reason.  Older article included descriptions of distribution, referenced information and was generally informative.  Now with even the history tampered with, I can't access past versions of this article.  Anyone know what's going on?melonbarmonster 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older Edit History Deleted?

message: As for the other point of contention--the Korean wikipedia entry link should stay; if you do not like the Korean name for the article, go to the Korean wikipedia and request a move there. —LactoseTIT 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine for now.melonbarmonster 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Wikipedia entry 

message: Added reference from IUCN Red List.  The text comes from the IUCN list anyways but wasn't referenced for some reason by whoever made the initial edit.melonbarmonster 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding this reference. I have been looking for the credible sources that describe about the sighting in the '70s, especially in 1975. Jjok 00:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Regarding Extinction

message: Media:Example.oggItalic text ==
"Californian Sea Lions" sounds wrong to me.  I belive that it should be "California Sea Lions", at least that would be what we would say here in California.  --Kevin Murray 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: Just opening up opportunity for discussion.  SANE arguments and discussions please.  No blind POV reverting please.  Raise issues in the talk page and at the very least explain your edits if your going to make drastic edits or friggin reversions to my edits.
1. Habitat and range should state the habitat and range.  If "Japanese archipelago" and "Korean peninsula" are apt descriptions and there is no need to specify Liancourt rocks or Ullungdo.
2. http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=461 was given as a reference to the text that Liancourt rocks and Ullungdo were the last confirmed breeding grounds for the sea lions.  Checked the reference and it doesn't say that.  Let me know if anyone can find anything in the reference that states this.  If not, this is fraudulent referencing.
3. Food and Foraging Section deleted.  No need to keep this in the text when there's no text.  Whoever keeps on reverting this back it, just add it when you have some text.  This isn't your personal article or work space!
4. Liancourt rocks section and extinction section combined.  Please don't take text and references I added and manipulate POV BS.  At least discuss your issues or propose edit changes in the talk page and not engage in blind reverting please.  First, the references show that the last confirmed COLONY was at Liancourt rocks in the 50's NOT the 70's!  The last confirmed specimen was in Japan in 74 in Hokkaido.  Second, why was the text referenced from the IUCN  list deleted????  Let's keep this in.melonbarmonster 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is for gajido, one of sea lion/seal-related place names in Korea. Jjok 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand your English too well.  But if I understand you right I think you're trying to say that Occidentalism reference talks about gajido.  Again, you used that reference to support the claim that Dokdo was the last confirmed breeding ground.  That is not true and your comment that the "reference is for gajido" doesn't shed any new light on this matter.  Let me know if I missed the text in the reference that states that Dokdo was the last confirmed breeding ground.  But from the facts we have so far, considering a juvenile was captured in Hokkaido in 74, such a claim seems impossible.  Moreover there seems to be Japanese POV pushing going on here to shift the blame of extinction to Koreans and we don't need that Japan vs Korea POV pushing here.melonbarmonster 04:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Repairs

message: Many of references of Japanese Sea Lion were "Not Found. "Therefore, I replaced it with . What is my problem?
Reference to be dead
*환경부 [정보마당]　http://www.me.go.kr/dev/openpds/openpds_view.jsp?dept=&depart_code=&key=&search=&gubun=&idx=14450
*http://kuki1.stoo.com/news/html/000/462/827.html
*일일 데이터 전송량 초과안내　http://dokdocenter.org/dokdo_news/index.cgi?action=detail&number=2599&thread=18r04r03
*http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=374380006
--Eichikiyama (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, the kukinews content has been archived by several reliable sites such as Korean Coast Guard, one of Korean navy. So I hope you do not complain about the replacement. So the only dead one is the source from Japanese one.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Sea Lion

message: This entire section is extremely problematic. It reaks of Japanese whitewashing and little regarding the sea lion population.
Here are the main claims of the text:
1. Nakai Yōzaburō built a fishery house on the uninhabited Liancourt Rocks to aid in harvesting sea lions 
2. Hunting of sea lions in this location was subject to government approval.
3. Former fisherman of the Oki Islands stated that they worked to protect the sea lion population to ensure perpetuity of the resource before WWII.
The ONLY reference given to back up these claims is http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/incorporation.html
However the given reference makes no mention of fishery house, hunting being subject to government approval, and no mention of working to preserve resources into perpetuity. The reference doesn't make ANY mention of these statements.Melonbarmonster2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Fishery

message: Melonbarmonster2 blanked fully sourced description saying "1970's references with an edit summary Check out WP:CITE. This 'rumor' is contradicted by referenced text in which case the better reference supercedes." I am not sure the user's edit summary. If 1970's source is against WP:CITE, please explain more about the relevant guideline. The description of 'rumor' is based on the author's belief that the rumor is not confirmed but it is worth mentioning. Moreover other three sources I added support the description, "during the Korean War, Korean soldiers occupied the last stronghold of these animal on Take-shima islet, and reportedly wiped out the last survivors.", "Korean soldiers may have wiped out the last colony" and "Since the occupation of this islet by South Korean troops in the 195o's, the Japanese Sea-lion has disappeared, and may well be extinct". All these sources back this 'rumor'. 
I also point out that Melonbarmonster2's "the better reference supercedes (sic)". It is a Korean territory nationalist's self published site, "dokdocenter.org. I strongly request this unreliable source along with the supported descriptions should be removed. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dokdocenter is a South Korean Coast Guard website and the Japanese Ministry of Environment website states the same thing.  My full response is below.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Melonbarmonster2]]'s disruptive edit 

message: To resolve the latest spate of reverts regarding this issue I am listing out the competing references on this for all of us to see plainly:
References that state extinction in 70's.
* - From Japanese Ministry of Environment, Abe Hisashi uses references from 90's and documents last sighting in 1974.  The reference itself is probably from 2000's.
* From Korean coast guard, this 2005 reference states sea lions were wiped out by Japanese fishery on Dokdo and against cites last sighting as juvenile captured in 1974.
*Looks self-published but restates extinction being caused by Japanese fishery and gives Japanese sea lion harvest numbers. Dates 2008
* Book from 2008 shows last sightings were in 1970's.
References that state rumors about sea lions being extinct bc of Korean soldiers during Korean War.
*Regenstein, Lewis (1975). The politics of extinction: the shocking story of the world's endangered wildlife. Macmillan. p. 52. "during the Korean War, Korean soldiers occupied the last stronghold of these animal on Take-shima islet, and reportedly wiped out the last survivors."
*Reader's Digest. Our magnificent wildlife: how to enjoy and preserve it. Reader's Digest Association. p. 259. "Korean soldiers may have wiped out the last colony."
*Littlewood, Cyril (1970). The mammals. Arco. "Since the occupation of this islet by South Korean troops in the 195o's, the Japanese Sea-lion has disappeared, and may well be extinct.
*Purcell, Rosamond Wolff (1999). Swift as a Shadow: extinct and endangered animals. Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 64. This citation explicitly states that this is a RUMOR and looks to be echoing outdated and false information.
Not all references are equal and when we are confronted with contradicting accounts we are to use common senseWP:Common in determining which facts from the best references should be used in the article. The qualitative difference between the above two groups of references are vast. Given above references the obvious answer is that the most recent and logical references be used.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Sea Lion Sightings

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese sea lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924012502/http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/09/113_9626.html to http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/09/113_9626.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The statement that the isolated animals seen on two occasions were positively identified as otariinae is incomprehensible to the non-specialist. I think that this needs to be clarified to indicate whether or not these animals were identified as Japanese sea lions.Bill (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was both a Korean animal and a Japanese animal. 218.153.113.156 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

text: There is indeed one passage in section "Exploitation and Extinction" that is sourced only to the IUCN page, where the information is sourced right back to WP:  Peculiar. Unless this can be referenced to one of the other three sources already present in the paragraph (which does not seem to be the case) or elsewhere, these two sentences should probably be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isolated Sights 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Japanese sea lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20071126110922/http://www.city.osaka.jp/yutoritomidori/report/zoo/20061031.html to http://www.city.osaka.jp/yutoritomidori/report/zoo/20061031.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biodic.go.jp/cgi-db/gen/RDB_G2000_DO.RDB_DETAIL?wamei=%A5%CB%A5%DB%A5%F3%A5%A2%A5%B7%A5%AB
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719115022/http://www1.pref.shimane.lg.jp/contents/rdb/rdb2/cnt/cnt27a.html to http://www1.pref.shimane.lg.jp/contents/rdb/rdb2/cnt/cnt27a.html
*Added  tag to http://www.me.go.kr/dev/openpds/openpds_view.jsp?dept=&depart_code=&key=&search=&gubun=&idx=14450
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026032324/http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/e_news/index53.html to http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/e_news/index53.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928074431/http://sannaimaruyama.pref.aomori.jp/english/image/english-pamph.pdf to http://sannaimaruyama.pref.aomori.jp/english/image/english-pamph.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Japanese sea lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002162317/http://dokdo.kcg.go.kr/board/view.asp?num=131&bid=dokdo_speech&page=12&Sdir=sub06&Path=a_1 to http://dokdo.kcg.go.kr/board/view.asp?num=131&bid=dokdo_speech&page=12&Sdir=sub06&Path=a_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No japen! That is korea animals. 이청주 (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It was both a Korean animal and a Japanese animal. 218.153.113.156 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im from korea 

message: This cannot stay like this.Menah the Great (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed one passage in section "Exploitation and Extinction" that is sourced only to the IUCN page, where the information is sourced right back to WP:  Peculiar. Unless this can be referenced to one of the other three sources already present in the paragraph (which does not seem to be the case) or elsewhere, these two sentences should probably be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction causes are sourced to IUCN... which sources them to Wikipedia