This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese sea lion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ooen? -- Zoe
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)
Lactose, stop your POV pushing. The reference is fine and it needs to stated without prejudice. melonbarmonster 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Any third parties here? Please comment. melonbarmonster 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion: It seems awkward to have "which the Korea Times suggested in an article" in that sentence, and it may also be POV. Why not just rewrite the sentence to say "One potential cause of their extinction was harvesting by Japanese trawlers in the early 20th century" and a reference to the article? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's "one potential cause" or it's "one theory among several" are our subjective opinions. This is an example of when we should let the facts speak for themselves and just state what the reference states. Concerns about stating different causes and possibilities, factors that contributed to extinction are already addressed in the text with the paragraph clearly stating that "there are several causes". melonbarmonster —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference clearly states that extinction was caused by Japanese trawlers. The dispute was originally over HOW this was to be reflected in the text of the article. Now, the cause of extinction is entirely deleted! Please take care to explain edits further before making changes in the text. I'll refrain from changing the text again and wait for further discussion. melonbarmonster 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I offered about 5 new references to support the initial reference in question. So far NO competing references have been offered. So far the only grounds for opposition to these references that's been offered is Japanese POV and nothing else. WP:NPOV clearly states "let facts speak for themselves".
This is a rather simple matter and RfC would only be necessary to stop the reversions being made by Lactose, Komdori, etc..
And Komdori, please don't make blanket reversions. I've done some work to research and include new references along with edit explanations and participation in this talk page. You can't just revert without explanation and participation in this talk page. melonbarmonster 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You also might want to try and see what this has to offer:
Nakamura K (1992) The tragic marine mammal, Japanese sea lion, Zalophus californianus japonicus (Peters, 1866). Aquabiology 14: 185–189 (in Japanese with English abstract)
Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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. — LactoseTI T 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Multiple references added including specific data from Japanese fishing records. Hope this ends the edit warring. melonbarmonster 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for all who have been editing recently: it seems that all of you are active on the Liancourt Rocks article. Is this article going to become an outpost for the constant battle that's going on over there? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I see why you're saying this... didn't know the Japanese POV edits made to the text to turn this into another Liancourt/Koreans killed the sea lions thing. I love the new facts from Japanese articles but tweaking wording to undermine cause for extinction and attempting to blame Koreans for extinction, etc., stuff is ridiculous POV stuff that should not be dragged over here with a lame "Liancourt Rocks" subsection. melonbarmonster 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Tried to take all the references that were added by jjok and tried to incorporate them into references we have already without the POV spin. Headings that have no text to them yet have been deleted. We can add those sections later when we have text to put under them. Extinction heading should be left alone and not changed to "liancourt rocks" as if to imply that's where they became extinct since the last confirmed report was in Japan mind you.
These new Japanese references are great! But I do not appreciate deceptive POV manipulations to my previous edits such as changing commercial fishing causing sea lions to become "became extinct" to "likely cause extinction", etc.. melonbarmonster 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said they were found only on Liancourt. I never said Korea is going to cage the lions from swimming outside of Korea. I did state that the current effort at repopulation will be conducted in Korean waters. That's a fact referenced by 3 or 4 articles. melonbarmonster 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Some one who has little foundation in English gramar is adding a lot of text here. I suggest that person seek a fluent mentor. I'd be happy to help. -- Kevin Murray 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
References
==
[[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)
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)
Many of references of Japanese Sea Lion were "Not Found. "Therefore, I replaced it with citation needed. What is my problem?
Reference to be dead
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you deleted information, not just only tagging citation needed. Your deletion campaign over many articles are also to show your behaviors. The first one is not dead. You're not reading the page carefully. That is an attached file. The third one is also not dead one "the Korean language you pasted says "Notice for exceeding data transmission today" which means, that is temporary. So your allege for "there is no source" is not even true. You have to carefully write down what you're going to edit like "the link is dead".-- Caspian blue ( talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
It is difficult to see what should be problematic about the phrase "natural habitat in the Sea of Japan"? The quoted web site is properly cited, too. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's a conflict in information among references. It is also obvious that the Dutch reference is factually wrong since natural habitat of this sea lion extends beyond the sea of Japan and rehab efforts extend into Chinese waters and Russian waters. The Japanese sea lion is also effectively extinct, not "close to extinction in SK and Japan" which only proves that this Dutch reference is problematic. There's no reason to insist on a bad reference when multiple references state otherwise. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
References
The data is from Japanese harvest records, NOT KOREAN, and injecting POV language about nationality of the newspaper and your opinions about the source is editorializing per WP:EDITORIAL. You are degrading the quality of the article. Please give an explanation for your edits instead of blindly reverting. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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." [2] 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)
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.
References that state rumors about sea lions being extinct bc of Korean soldiers during Korean War.
Not all references are equal and when we are confronted with contradicting accounts we are to use common sense WP: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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.me.go.kr/dev/openpds/openpds_view.jsp?dept=&depart_code=&key=&search=&gubun=&idx=14450When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No japen! That is korea animals. 이청주 ( talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This cannot stay like this. Menah the Great ( talk) 12:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Valuable oil was extracted from the skin, its internal organs were used to make expensive medicine, and its whiskers and skin were used as pipe cleaners and leather goods, respectively. At the turn of the 20th century, they were captured for use in circuses.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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Japanese sea lion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ooen? -- Zoe
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)
Lactose, stop your POV pushing. The reference is fine and it needs to stated without prejudice. melonbarmonster 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Any third parties here? Please comment. melonbarmonster 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion: It seems awkward to have "which the Korea Times suggested in an article" in that sentence, and it may also be POV. Why not just rewrite the sentence to say "One potential cause of their extinction was harvesting by Japanese trawlers in the early 20th century" and a reference to the article? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's "one potential cause" or it's "one theory among several" are our subjective opinions. This is an example of when we should let the facts speak for themselves and just state what the reference states. Concerns about stating different causes and possibilities, factors that contributed to extinction are already addressed in the text with the paragraph clearly stating that "there are several causes". melonbarmonster —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The reference clearly states that extinction was caused by Japanese trawlers. The dispute was originally over HOW this was to be reflected in the text of the article. Now, the cause of extinction is entirely deleted! Please take care to explain edits further before making changes in the text. I'll refrain from changing the text again and wait for further discussion. melonbarmonster 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I offered about 5 new references to support the initial reference in question. So far NO competing references have been offered. So far the only grounds for opposition to these references that's been offered is Japanese POV and nothing else. WP:NPOV clearly states "let facts speak for themselves".
This is a rather simple matter and RfC would only be necessary to stop the reversions being made by Lactose, Komdori, etc..
And Komdori, please don't make blanket reversions. I've done some work to research and include new references along with edit explanations and participation in this talk page. You can't just revert without explanation and participation in this talk page. melonbarmonster 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You also might want to try and see what this has to offer:
Nakamura K (1992) The tragic marine mammal, Japanese sea lion, Zalophus californianus japonicus (Peters, 1866). Aquabiology 14: 185–189 (in Japanese with English abstract)
Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
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. — LactoseTI T 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Multiple references added including specific data from Japanese fishing records. Hope this ends the edit warring. melonbarmonster 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a question for all who have been editing recently: it seems that all of you are active on the Liancourt Rocks article. Is this article going to become an outpost for the constant battle that's going on over there? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I see why you're saying this... didn't know the Japanese POV edits made to the text to turn this into another Liancourt/Koreans killed the sea lions thing. I love the new facts from Japanese articles but tweaking wording to undermine cause for extinction and attempting to blame Koreans for extinction, etc., stuff is ridiculous POV stuff that should not be dragged over here with a lame "Liancourt Rocks" subsection. melonbarmonster 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Tried to take all the references that were added by jjok and tried to incorporate them into references we have already without the POV spin. Headings that have no text to them yet have been deleted. We can add those sections later when we have text to put under them. Extinction heading should be left alone and not changed to "liancourt rocks" as if to imply that's where they became extinct since the last confirmed report was in Japan mind you.
These new Japanese references are great! But I do not appreciate deceptive POV manipulations to my previous edits such as changing commercial fishing causing sea lions to become "became extinct" to "likely cause extinction", etc.. melonbarmonster 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said they were found only on Liancourt. I never said Korea is going to cage the lions from swimming outside of Korea. I did state that the current effort at repopulation will be conducted in Korean waters. That's a fact referenced by 3 or 4 articles. melonbarmonster 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Some one who has little foundation in English gramar is adding a lot of text here. I suggest that person seek a fluent mentor. I'd be happy to help. -- Kevin Murray 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
References
==
[[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)
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)
Many of references of Japanese Sea Lion were "Not Found. "Therefore, I replaced it with citation needed. What is my problem?
Reference to be dead
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you deleted information, not just only tagging citation needed. Your deletion campaign over many articles are also to show your behaviors. The first one is not dead. You're not reading the page carefully. That is an attached file. The third one is also not dead one "the Korean language you pasted says "Notice for exceeding data transmission today" which means, that is temporary. So your allege for "there is no source" is not even true. You have to carefully write down what you're going to edit like "the link is dead".-- Caspian blue ( talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
It is difficult to see what should be problematic about the phrase "natural habitat in the Sea of Japan"? The quoted web site is properly cited, too. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there's a conflict in information among references. It is also obvious that the Dutch reference is factually wrong since natural habitat of this sea lion extends beyond the sea of Japan and rehab efforts extend into Chinese waters and Russian waters. The Japanese sea lion is also effectively extinct, not "close to extinction in SK and Japan" which only proves that this Dutch reference is problematic. There's no reason to insist on a bad reference when multiple references state otherwise. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
References
The data is from Japanese harvest records, NOT KOREAN, and injecting POV language about nationality of the newspaper and your opinions about the source is editorializing per WP:EDITORIAL. You are degrading the quality of the article. Please give an explanation for your edits instead of blindly reverting. Melonbarmonster2 ( talk) 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
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." [2] 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)
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.
References that state rumors about sea lions being extinct bc of Korean soldiers during Korean War.
Not all references are equal and when we are confronted with contradicting accounts we are to use common sense WP: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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.me.go.kr/dev/openpds/openpds_view.jsp?dept=&depart_code=&key=&search=&gubun=&idx=14450When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
No japen! That is korea animals. 이청주 ( talk) 05:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This cannot stay like this. Menah the Great ( talk) 12:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Valuable oil was extracted from the skin, its internal organs were used to make expensive medicine, and its whiskers and skin were used as pipe cleaners and leather goods, respectively. At the turn of the 20th century, they were captured for use in circuses.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)