![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hillary Clinton talking about minimal nuclear weapons reduction with Russia at this moment.. Just as media should be talking about this. -- DA</fonThere was no consensus for anything, just people t>I ( Δ) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Pohang_class_corvette lists PCC-771 Andong as sunk of today. there's no source for this information given however. 130.63.216.124 ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles contrary to EXPLOSION
Lastest Photos
Articles showing ROK's current situation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
I've moved some material here from the ship article, following some long discussions there. I trust the editors here are OK with that. Xyl 54 ( talk) 00:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"Initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, and that a South Korean vessel had returned fire.[7]" The South Korean vessel that returned fire (whether a flock of birds or a North Korean Vessel) was the Sokcho (PCC-778). Gerswing ( talk) 11:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerswing ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion
elsewhere about whether the name of this article could be improved, viz:
"If we are to move the info, I think we need a better name than the rather uninformative Baengnyeong incident. Perhaps The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan or 2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island.
Rwendland (
talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any thoughts? Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to agree to that some name change is needed. So how about an informal vote in the format * Name signature. Rules allow people to change their vote to second choice as the votes progress:
The name needs to be changed. The only place to call it "The Baengnyeong incident" is Wikipedia.
Here are the Google search results for three different names:
324 for "Baengnyeong incident"
9,390 for "Cheonan incident"
18,200 for "Cheonan sinking"
I'll change it to ROKS Cheonan sinking. There will never be another, so it solves the date problem. It saves confusion with the city of Cheonan. I don't know if there are enough people active on this discussion page for a vote to be successful, but by all means change it back if you wish. Thanks. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 10:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the full of ROKS? -- Cheol ( talk) 13:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is it called a sinking? There has been nothing related to any kind of explosion found, all evidence suggest catastrophic structural failure, some bullshit about "the gas bubble" doing the damage, but i really doubt the water was suffiently deep where it sank to even fire a torpedo, let alone one to form one. All in all, most of the "sources" and quotes on the article seem to be of "conspiracy" or "propaganda" sources, with little to do with any kind of reality or truth, the article needs a MAJOR overhaul and clean up.
80.220.201.10 ( talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Next?-- Hourick ( talk) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that this article needs a major overhaul. For example, why is this article in a format of battle? There is no official reports that it is some sort of battle? And why is the result stated as a victory for DPRK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.239.43 ( talk) 05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove. I think this should now be deleted because an official independent international report has been published. When a guilty verdict is made, there is no room for speculation. There is room for appeal but based on the presentable facts. Speculation is based on hearsay, supposition and opinion.
Therefore this section has to be removed or heavily edited as it is now encyclopedic. In the basest sense it is nothing more than gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.18.32 ( talk) 10:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Your argument is equal to saying that the "Conspiracy theories" section of the September 11 attacks should be removed because international sources blamed Al-Queda for the attacks.
And the media hasn't actually all gone over to the conclusion that "DPRK dunnit." Especially Korean sources. For instance, http://www.cbs.co.kr/nocut/show.asp?idx=1486055 and http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2010052016405405438 and http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=88599 and http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=40100527005949§ion=05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor Tassadar ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If you can't stand the word, "Speculation," then change it to "Refutations of Official Views" or "Conspiracy theories" or "Dissenting views on Causes" or whatever, but it should be kept because there is still a lot of dissenting views. -- Exec. Tassadar ( comments, contribs) 08:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Since a combat info-box has been included and looks similar to Battle of Daecheong, and since the article attributes the sinking to hostile action by the North Korean Navy, should the info-box also have "KPN Victory", just like the Battle of Daecheong infobox reads "ROK Victory" ? Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 13:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Was surprised that consensus was arrived at this being an act of terrorism but not really keen on entering into a discussion on the merits of the same (i'm sure you can also predict how fruitful that might be)... so just wanted to express my surprise (without being a troll and starting a debate for the sake of starting one, now that consensus has already been achieved). Cheers! Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The North Korean army isn't a "bunch of terrorists". They are a professionally trained armed forces from North Korea. This event is by the Korean People's Navy, not terrorists.. and this battle is part of the "Crab Wars" therefore is a scene of battle. This is a North Korean victory.
flyyinskyy (
talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the N. Korean NAVY listed as a belligerent with no sources whatsoever? That is the definition of synthesis. As per the reports accusations it was N. Korea (which is still debatable until a claim of responsibility), so a more neutral term can suffice in the interim. I've tried one, see if there's something better. Lihaas ( talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Korean version of this page there is a huge wall of information dedicated to the controversies and whitewashing related to the Lee Myeong-bak regarding this incident. This is a Korea-related incident. So it's wise to bring back the controversy section. I don't know why WikiLaurent deleted this section because there are too many South Koreans who don't believe in the official responses. WikiLaurent said "Reliable sources did not report any major "controversy" around the event". But he (or she) didn't know that you don't see controversies in every English language article. -- Komitsuki ( talk) 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If DPRK is responsible, now it's time to tell why DPRK did it. Up to now, the only reason why they did is to help Lee Myung-bak for his many troubles and pressures. All at once President Lee swept all his problems thanking DPRK's stupid movement (if DPRK did it). Based on DPRK's stretagies shown up to now including kidnapping of two USA reporters on their border, Cheonan-hahm sinking is just the stupidiest movement which DPRK has made. Kim Jung-il began to suffer dementia at last? -- Hyungjin Ahn ( talk) 10:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A poll in the Japanese press shows that the majority think the USA sunk the ship! 51% think the US. 43% think the PDRK did it. 1% think the ROK did it. 5% think another country did it. Anyone for the Klingons?
To me, this kind of rubbish is not worthy of Wikipedia. http://www.japantoday.com/category/poll/view/who-do-you-think-was-behind-the-sinking-of-a-south-korean-warship-on-march-26 Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like developments will soon go beyond the scope of an article on the sinking of the Cheonan. By this I mean any North Korean reaction to the resumption of psychological warfare such as firing on the installations. A new article could be called something like "The Korean military crisis" which would cover everything up to full blown war. Your thoughts on a name? -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 01:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a battle, and details are sketchy at best right now. If this leads to war (lets hope not) then I can understand a battle box, but right now it seems too early if this turns out to just be an isolated incident. ScienceApe ( talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How is the article on the USS Maine related to this article? It strikes me as an attempt to interject "false flag" conspiracy theories when there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that such theories are relevant to the Cheonan story. -- 198.169.65.1 ( talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. 216.237.232.178 ( talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys might as well put your TV on CNN right now, they just said that North Korea is ready to declare a war on South Korea. Also, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100525/ts_nm/us_korea_north That is pretty much all. Thank you for your attention. -- Josecarlos1991 ( talk) 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Would explain the sheer amount of jets I have heard overhead tonight in Paju-shi (just south of the border). Came on here looking for up-to-date info for the why on that. Off to CNN. Thanks for the yell Komitsuki. I know this is not a BBS, but thanks for the info, I wanted to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.143.83.219 ( talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Once you've been here a while you'll start to realize that North Korea 'nearly' declares war every second week. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone who can read Korean please summarize the evidence against North Korea? There are quotes of political leaders finding the findings "convincing" but no summary of the evidence itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This, in Official Findings, is taken word for word from the official investigation document:
The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on May 15, which include the 5x5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section, perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes. The markings in Hangul, which reads "1번" (or No. 1 in English), found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo. Russian and Chinese torpedoes are marked in their respective languages. The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods
Although the investigation is cited, it may be better to either paraphrase this or indicate with quotes that the whole paragraph is from the investigation. I'm not very wikipedia-wise but perhaps someone who is should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.175.186 ( talk) 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() Map of the area of ROKS Cheonan sinking | |
Date | March 26, 2010 |
---|---|
Time | 09:22 Korea Standard Time |
Location | Near Baengnyeong Island, Yellow Sea |
Participants | (Allegedly)![]() ![]() |
Property damage | 1 ROK corvette sunk, 46 personnel killed |
Inquiries | International investigation convened by ROK government |
Charges | Investigation concludes that PRK sank the corvette using a midget submarine-launched torpedo, international reaction ongoing |
Here is my proposed infobox. Cla68 ( talk) 20:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I oppose using the generic info box. It's a battle, what else is it? It's not civilian action, it was two military vessels against one-another. Granted, one didn't know it was coming... but that happens. What's to debate, use the battle box. Teafico ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the article and the infobox are both titled "Sinking of the Cheonan" so the result we should put here is the result of the sinking - i.e. the international reactions, the consequences for North and South Korea, etc. Putting that the result of the sinking was the sinking doesn't make any sense. Moreover, this info is already in "Casualties and losses" in the same infobox. Laurent ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source or not, but it provides some analysis from a US military/political POV: The Cheonan Incident and North Korea’s Northern Limit Line Strategy. Cla68 ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the names of the experts on the international panel? Their country of origin and occupation are interesting, but they are not sufficient answers as to who these people are. Imagine if we didn't know the names of the people on the commission who investigated the reasons the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded ( Rogers Commission). Do these people have conflicts of interest, for example? Read Template:who. Wallers ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So a couple of us are having a bit of a disagreement over some Chinese claims that the ship was sunk by the US—friendly fire, false flag, that sort of thing. User:LogicDictates added a whole bunch of stuff pertaining to this here, which I removed a couple days later here, citing my opinion that the length of the section places too much emphasis on the Chinese POV and that I don't really like most of the sources. I left a note at LogicDictates talk page here, explaining my concerns, to which he responded here, and which I replied to here. Since we're not in agreement, and it's an important part of the article, and I'm away from computer for a couple of hours anyway, I figured leaving a note hear to get other people's opinions would be the best course of action. So, thoughts, anyone? Cheers, C628 ( talk) 12:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that these two articles are very similar, that ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) probably as one event of notability and that they should probably be merged? SGGH ping! 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Why would you merge a major international issue with an article about a ship? Besides which there's too much to merge. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with those who have opposed this. Wolcott ( talk) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This incident is certainly notable enough to have its own article, especially since its ramification have extended much further than the ship itself. Waygugin ( talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Both are clearly notable, and have clearly defined boundaries that should allow for two separate articles. -- Falcorian (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait & Watch If the dispute escalates, as looks likely now, the ship and sinking (as the trigger to the escalation) will need their own articles. In such a case, the sinking article materials should be converted into a Fate section in the ship article, and a similar section should be trigger kind of section in an article about the escalation. EaswarH ( talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I know this should have been discussed first, but it seems that now that the furor (overall) has died down a bit, it was probably a good time to trim this section down a bit. I'm using the 2004 Madrid train bombings and 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as examples for extended lists of reactions.
The battle box, as I said some weeks ago, needs to be changed to a generic infobox. North Korea has denied involvement, so you can't use a battlebox. Also, the contrary opinions on the sinking have been gaining credence in the media. I just read something about a new investigation by two Korean professors living in the US who dispute the "official" report's conclusion. The article does need to show that there is signifiicant opposition to the views that North Korea sank the ship. Cla68 ( talk) 11:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
An independent investigation? How do we know that the commision was "independent", independent of who? I would think that an "independent" commision should be independent of both parties inveloved, i.e. both NK and SK, which clearly isn't the case here. This article http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=6392 states that the "civilian-military investigation team consists of 25 experts from ten domestic professional institutes, 22 military experts, three lawmakers from related National Assembly committees and 24 foreign experts". So, since S Korean military was involved, but no N Koreans then calling it independent violates NPOV. Suggest changing to "an interational commission". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.161.0 ( talk) 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In what sense was the investigation independent? What was it independent of? Where is the citation supporting that assertion? Facts, please! Surely if we are only going on the word of some newspaper, it would be more transparent and encyclopedic to say "an investigation which Newspaper X characterized as independent" rather than "an independent investigation". The latter phrase tells us what to think, the former why we might want to think it... A5 ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
(Had planned to fix this 24 hours or so ago, then had major computer problems which I won't go in to, back now.) I have removed the 'independent' part. Only one of the four sources we use for that sentence even calls it an independent investigation, which is Daily NK. We already describe the composition and nature of the investigation team in the section above, so I don't think we need to bother to give it an epithet at all. In addition I have reworded the part about May 20, this was the day they publicly released their report, it's a bit confusing to suggest it's the day they concluded that the ship sunk because of a torpedo. BTW, is there any evidence that the investigation team consider themself an independent investigation as WGW says? The report doesn't appear to use that word, it says it's a report of "The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group" which doesn't exactly scream 'independent' Nil Einne ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A new user, Carroback ( talk · contribs) has three times changed the infobox to say that it's not known who sank the ship. I've reverted each time, on the basis that the most widely accepted claim is that North Korea sank the ship, particularly as it's the official explanation for the event. While there are conflicting claims, the most credible one is that North Korea is responsible; IMO, that's the one that should go in the infobox, with others mentioned elsewhere in the article, which they already are (eg, Chinese). Anyone else have thoughts on the matter. (Incidentally, I've contacted the editor twice at their talk page, no response.) Cheers, C628 ( talk) 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone named Clerkenwell removed the (allegedly) in front of the PRK Navy in the infobox. I undid this change, though I realize 'allegedly' is generally frowned upon, I didn't put it there, C628 did, so I was just returning it to the previous state. I figured C628, being a veteran, would know when 'allegedly' was appropriate. -- Be gottlieb ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
We should form a consensus on the use of the word alleged then. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contribs 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Switching to a more ambiguous infobox which nevertheless still included North Korea is not sufficient to allay the grievances presented by myself and others above. Also the use of flag icon underscores this. __ meco ( talk) 05:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle Box is inappropriate at the moment. The 'participation' of North Korean vessels is only alleged in the JIG report, the validity of which has been substantially challenged (see POV discussion, among others).-- Be gottlieb ( talk) 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that as the article currently stands it is very good. It describes the situation perfectly without stating anything as fact and states the matter is till ongoing. I don't know what the article was like before, and what disputes you guys may have had, but I think you have it right at this precise moment. -- 86.24.162.140 ( talk) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved from top to be in proper order.
C628 (
talk) 14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a POV Check on this article because it does not comply
The article, as it stands now, asserts numerous increasingly contentious assertions as facts, and does not give proportional importance to credible evidence which contradicts this official line. User Hyunjin Ahn (see section 'First Comments' (now archived)) has been very helpful in going through the far more balanced Korean language version of this article.
One example of contravention of NPOV from the intro paragraph
The claims have been disputed by journalists, scientists and other experts from South Korea and around the world. It is inaccurate to frame doubt about the findings of the 'team of international experts' to reside exclusively in (assumedly biased) China. Please see this report from one of the (dissenting) South Korean members of this team posted to a prominent SK political blog, it is very detailed in its refutation of the 'official story' as parroted, too uncritically, in my opinion, in the wikipedia article. http://www.seoprise.com/board/view.php?table=seoprise_12&uid=154146
Another example, the use of a 'Battle Box' instead of a more neutral 'Infobox' on the right side. It is, according to all current information, no longer clear if this this was a military confrontation, the description of the NK Navy as a belligerent in this case is, if not premature, incorrect. There is a lot of good information in the discussions above and in the archive which should be factored into a more balanced an nuanced presentation of the event as a whole. -- Be gottlieb ( talk) 12:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia veteran, but here are my thoughts: it would be better to present this as a "he said - she said" situation, rather than an "official" versus "conspiracy" account of events. The South Korean's findings were not drafted by an open, independent investigation--rather they were made by employees of governments' militarys, the drafters' names were not made public, and they never demonstrated the effectiveness of their methodology. As authors of Wikipedia, we cannot realistically portray South Korea's (weighty) accusations as authoritative because they have not gone through the same type rigor as a scientific article in, say for example, Nature or Science. Wikipedia authors should give weight to findings based on how rigorous the methodology used to produce/discover them are. Authors should not weight findings based on how many times they've been heard or on who's saying them. Without a discussion of methodology, we cannot treat other narratives as fringe or minority (China says it happened by accident, Russia is not saying what it has found). Wallers ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this section to discuss whether the reference to an explosion should remain unqualified in the section "Sinking of Cheonan". Not only the explosion itself but the official time of the incident is still a matter of debate. According to several investigators, including member of the the JIG (ROK Official investigation) Mr S.C. Shin, the official time of the distress call was 9:15, not 9:22 as reported here in WP. (I know the reference looks flaky but, it should be acknowledged that seoprise.com is famous in Korea (I think one of the top 100 sites in Korea according to Alexa) for playing a role similar to Wikileaks)
But back to the explosion itself. Mr. Shin in the above link discounts the likelihood of there having been an explosion. At their press conference at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Tokyo on July 9th, 2010 Professor JJ Suh of Johns Hopkins University and Seung-Hun Lee, a Korean-born physicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville presented some strong scientific arguments against the JIG (official) claim that the Cheonan had been sunk by a torpedo, or by an explosion of any kind. (the video has some audio problems, but most is fine. also, some of their arguments leave something to be desired, but there is enough good material here to cast serious aspersions on the official version of events, including scientifically defensible claims that some officially reported evidence has been falsified).
Part 1 of press conference
Part 2 of press conference
Part 3 of press conference
Part 4 of press conference
This is an earlier article by Prof. Suh in which some of the evidence shown in the video appears a little more clearly.
The Russian investigative team is not saying much,
but apparently they don't believe in the official torpedo story either.
WADR to WP:Undue, and WP:NPOV The official claim that there was an explosion near the Cheonan before it sunk is not backed up by any substantial evidence, and indeed has been contradicted by eyewitness and even official logs. The contention that there was an explosion and the insinuation that this was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan should be reviewed and qualified.--
Be gottlieb (
talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading the Chosun Ilbo article cited, and referring to this BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8591366.stm it appears that the Captain may not have been in a very good position to ascertain what in fact caused the explosion, trapped as he was in his cabin. Therefore I would like to put it to the editors here that we remove the sensational assertion "We are being attacked by the enemy" from its prominent place at the top of the article, and place it in the JIG report section.
Also, the first official military reports seemed to exclude the likelihood of North Korean involvement before they assserted it a few days later.
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/413450.html --
Be gottlieb (
talk) 07:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"Initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, "
"South Korean officials initially downplayed suggestions that North Korea was responsible for the sinking."
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hillary Clinton talking about minimal nuclear weapons reduction with Russia at this moment.. Just as media should be talking about this. -- DA</fonThere was no consensus for anything, just people t>I ( Δ) 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Pohang_class_corvette lists PCC-771 Andong as sunk of today. there's no source for this information given however. 130.63.216.124 ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles contrary to EXPLOSION
Lastest Photos
Articles showing ROK's current situation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
I've moved some material here from the ship article, following some long discussions there. I trust the editors here are OK with that. Xyl 54 ( talk) 00:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"Initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, and that a South Korean vessel had returned fire.[7]" The South Korean vessel that returned fire (whether a flock of birds or a North Korean Vessel) was the Sokcho (PCC-778). Gerswing ( talk) 11:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerswing ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion
elsewhere about whether the name of this article could be improved, viz:
"If we are to move the info, I think we need a better name than the rather uninformative Baengnyeong incident. Perhaps The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan or 2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island.
Rwendland (
talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here have any thoughts? Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
We seem to agree to that some name change is needed. So how about an informal vote in the format * Name signature. Rules allow people to change their vote to second choice as the votes progress:
The name needs to be changed. The only place to call it "The Baengnyeong incident" is Wikipedia.
Here are the Google search results for three different names:
324 for "Baengnyeong incident"
9,390 for "Cheonan incident"
18,200 for "Cheonan sinking"
I'll change it to ROKS Cheonan sinking. There will never be another, so it solves the date problem. It saves confusion with the city of Cheonan. I don't know if there are enough people active on this discussion page for a vote to be successful, but by all means change it back if you wish. Thanks. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 10:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the full of ROKS? -- Cheol ( talk) 13:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is it called a sinking? There has been nothing related to any kind of explosion found, all evidence suggest catastrophic structural failure, some bullshit about "the gas bubble" doing the damage, but i really doubt the water was suffiently deep where it sank to even fire a torpedo, let alone one to form one. All in all, most of the "sources" and quotes on the article seem to be of "conspiracy" or "propaganda" sources, with little to do with any kind of reality or truth, the article needs a MAJOR overhaul and clean up.
80.220.201.10 ( talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Next?-- Hourick ( talk) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that this article needs a major overhaul. For example, why is this article in a format of battle? There is no official reports that it is some sort of battle? And why is the result stated as a victory for DPRK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.239.43 ( talk) 05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove. I think this should now be deleted because an official independent international report has been published. When a guilty verdict is made, there is no room for speculation. There is room for appeal but based on the presentable facts. Speculation is based on hearsay, supposition and opinion.
Therefore this section has to be removed or heavily edited as it is now encyclopedic. In the basest sense it is nothing more than gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.18.32 ( talk) 10:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Your argument is equal to saying that the "Conspiracy theories" section of the September 11 attacks should be removed because international sources blamed Al-Queda for the attacks.
And the media hasn't actually all gone over to the conclusion that "DPRK dunnit." Especially Korean sources. For instance, http://www.cbs.co.kr/nocut/show.asp?idx=1486055 and http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2010052016405405438 and http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=88599 and http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=40100527005949§ion=05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor Tassadar ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If you can't stand the word, "Speculation," then change it to "Refutations of Official Views" or "Conspiracy theories" or "Dissenting views on Causes" or whatever, but it should be kept because there is still a lot of dissenting views. -- Exec. Tassadar ( comments, contribs) 08:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Since a combat info-box has been included and looks similar to Battle of Daecheong, and since the article attributes the sinking to hostile action by the North Korean Navy, should the info-box also have "KPN Victory", just like the Battle of Daecheong infobox reads "ROK Victory" ? Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 13:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Was surprised that consensus was arrived at this being an act of terrorism but not really keen on entering into a discussion on the merits of the same (i'm sure you can also predict how fruitful that might be)... so just wanted to express my surprise (without being a troll and starting a debate for the sake of starting one, now that consensus has already been achieved). Cheers! Chocolate Horlicks ( talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The North Korean army isn't a "bunch of terrorists". They are a professionally trained armed forces from North Korea. This event is by the Korean People's Navy, not terrorists.. and this battle is part of the "Crab Wars" therefore is a scene of battle. This is a North Korean victory.
flyyinskyy (
talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the N. Korean NAVY listed as a belligerent with no sources whatsoever? That is the definition of synthesis. As per the reports accusations it was N. Korea (which is still debatable until a claim of responsibility), so a more neutral term can suffice in the interim. I've tried one, see if there's something better. Lihaas ( talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Korean version of this page there is a huge wall of information dedicated to the controversies and whitewashing related to the Lee Myeong-bak regarding this incident. This is a Korea-related incident. So it's wise to bring back the controversy section. I don't know why WikiLaurent deleted this section because there are too many South Koreans who don't believe in the official responses. WikiLaurent said "Reliable sources did not report any major "controversy" around the event". But he (or she) didn't know that you don't see controversies in every English language article. -- Komitsuki ( talk) 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If DPRK is responsible, now it's time to tell why DPRK did it. Up to now, the only reason why they did is to help Lee Myung-bak for his many troubles and pressures. All at once President Lee swept all his problems thanking DPRK's stupid movement (if DPRK did it). Based on DPRK's stretagies shown up to now including kidnapping of two USA reporters on their border, Cheonan-hahm sinking is just the stupidiest movement which DPRK has made. Kim Jung-il began to suffer dementia at last? -- Hyungjin Ahn ( talk) 10:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A poll in the Japanese press shows that the majority think the USA sunk the ship! 51% think the US. 43% think the PDRK did it. 1% think the ROK did it. 5% think another country did it. Anyone for the Klingons?
To me, this kind of rubbish is not worthy of Wikipedia. http://www.japantoday.com/category/poll/view/who-do-you-think-was-behind-the-sinking-of-a-south-korean-warship-on-march-26 Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like developments will soon go beyond the scope of an article on the sinking of the Cheonan. By this I mean any North Korean reaction to the resumption of psychological warfare such as firing on the installations. A new article could be called something like "The Korean military crisis" which would cover everything up to full blown war. Your thoughts on a name? -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 01:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a battle, and details are sketchy at best right now. If this leads to war (lets hope not) then I can understand a battle box, but right now it seems too early if this turns out to just be an isolated incident. ScienceApe ( talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How is the article on the USS Maine related to this article? It strikes me as an attempt to interject "false flag" conspiracy theories when there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that such theories are relevant to the Cheonan story. -- 198.169.65.1 ( talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. 216.237.232.178 ( talk) 15:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys might as well put your TV on CNN right now, they just said that North Korea is ready to declare a war on South Korea. Also, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100525/ts_nm/us_korea_north That is pretty much all. Thank you for your attention. -- Josecarlos1991 ( talk) 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Would explain the sheer amount of jets I have heard overhead tonight in Paju-shi (just south of the border). Came on here looking for up-to-date info for the why on that. Off to CNN. Thanks for the yell Komitsuki. I know this is not a BBS, but thanks for the info, I wanted to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.143.83.219 ( talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Once you've been here a while you'll start to realize that North Korea 'nearly' declares war every second week. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone who can read Korean please summarize the evidence against North Korea? There are quotes of political leaders finding the findings "convincing" but no summary of the evidence itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This, in Official Findings, is taken word for word from the official investigation document:
The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on May 15, which include the 5x5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section, perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes. The markings in Hangul, which reads "1번" (or No. 1 in English), found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo. Russian and Chinese torpedoes are marked in their respective languages. The CHT-02D torpedo manufactured by North Korea utilizes acoustic/wake homing and passive acoustic tracking methods
Although the investigation is cited, it may be better to either paraphrase this or indicate with quotes that the whole paragraph is from the investigation. I'm not very wikipedia-wise but perhaps someone who is should change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.175.186 ( talk) 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() Map of the area of ROKS Cheonan sinking | |
Date | March 26, 2010 |
---|---|
Time | 09:22 Korea Standard Time |
Location | Near Baengnyeong Island, Yellow Sea |
Participants | (Allegedly)![]() ![]() |
Property damage | 1 ROK corvette sunk, 46 personnel killed |
Inquiries | International investigation convened by ROK government |
Charges | Investigation concludes that PRK sank the corvette using a midget submarine-launched torpedo, international reaction ongoing |
Here is my proposed infobox. Cla68 ( talk) 20:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I oppose using the generic info box. It's a battle, what else is it? It's not civilian action, it was two military vessels against one-another. Granted, one didn't know it was coming... but that happens. What's to debate, use the battle box. Teafico ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the article and the infobox are both titled "Sinking of the Cheonan" so the result we should put here is the result of the sinking - i.e. the international reactions, the consequences for North and South Korea, etc. Putting that the result of the sinking was the sinking doesn't make any sense. Moreover, this info is already in "Casualties and losses" in the same infobox. Laurent ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source or not, but it provides some analysis from a US military/political POV: The Cheonan Incident and North Korea’s Northern Limit Line Strategy. Cla68 ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
What are the names of the experts on the international panel? Their country of origin and occupation are interesting, but they are not sufficient answers as to who these people are. Imagine if we didn't know the names of the people on the commission who investigated the reasons the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded ( Rogers Commission). Do these people have conflicts of interest, for example? Read Template:who. Wallers ( talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So a couple of us are having a bit of a disagreement over some Chinese claims that the ship was sunk by the US—friendly fire, false flag, that sort of thing. User:LogicDictates added a whole bunch of stuff pertaining to this here, which I removed a couple days later here, citing my opinion that the length of the section places too much emphasis on the Chinese POV and that I don't really like most of the sources. I left a note at LogicDictates talk page here, explaining my concerns, to which he responded here, and which I replied to here. Since we're not in agreement, and it's an important part of the article, and I'm away from computer for a couple of hours anyway, I figured leaving a note hear to get other people's opinions would be the best course of action. So, thoughts, anyone? Cheers, C628 ( talk) 12:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that these two articles are very similar, that ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) probably as one event of notability and that they should probably be merged? SGGH ping! 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Why would you merge a major international issue with an article about a ship? Besides which there's too much to merge. -- Andrewrutherford ( talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with those who have opposed this. Wolcott ( talk) 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This incident is certainly notable enough to have its own article, especially since its ramification have extended much further than the ship itself. Waygugin ( talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Both are clearly notable, and have clearly defined boundaries that should allow for two separate articles. -- Falcorian (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait & Watch If the dispute escalates, as looks likely now, the ship and sinking (as the trigger to the escalation) will need their own articles. In such a case, the sinking article materials should be converted into a Fate section in the ship article, and a similar section should be trigger kind of section in an article about the escalation. EaswarH ( talk) 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I know this should have been discussed first, but it seems that now that the furor (overall) has died down a bit, it was probably a good time to trim this section down a bit. I'm using the 2004 Madrid train bombings and 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash as examples for extended lists of reactions.
The battle box, as I said some weeks ago, needs to be changed to a generic infobox. North Korea has denied involvement, so you can't use a battlebox. Also, the contrary opinions on the sinking have been gaining credence in the media. I just read something about a new investigation by two Korean professors living in the US who dispute the "official" report's conclusion. The article does need to show that there is signifiicant opposition to the views that North Korea sank the ship. Cla68 ( talk) 11:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
An independent investigation? How do we know that the commision was "independent", independent of who? I would think that an "independent" commision should be independent of both parties inveloved, i.e. both NK and SK, which clearly isn't the case here. This article http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=6392 states that the "civilian-military investigation team consists of 25 experts from ten domestic professional institutes, 22 military experts, three lawmakers from related National Assembly committees and 24 foreign experts". So, since S Korean military was involved, but no N Koreans then calling it independent violates NPOV. Suggest changing to "an interational commission". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.161.0 ( talk) 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In what sense was the investigation independent? What was it independent of? Where is the citation supporting that assertion? Facts, please! Surely if we are only going on the word of some newspaper, it would be more transparent and encyclopedic to say "an investigation which Newspaper X characterized as independent" rather than "an independent investigation". The latter phrase tells us what to think, the former why we might want to think it... A5 ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
(Had planned to fix this 24 hours or so ago, then had major computer problems which I won't go in to, back now.) I have removed the 'independent' part. Only one of the four sources we use for that sentence even calls it an independent investigation, which is Daily NK. We already describe the composition and nature of the investigation team in the section above, so I don't think we need to bother to give it an epithet at all. In addition I have reworded the part about May 20, this was the day they publicly released their report, it's a bit confusing to suggest it's the day they concluded that the ship sunk because of a torpedo. BTW, is there any evidence that the investigation team consider themself an independent investigation as WGW says? The report doesn't appear to use that word, it says it's a report of "The Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group" which doesn't exactly scream 'independent' Nil Einne ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
A new user, Carroback ( talk · contribs) has three times changed the infobox to say that it's not known who sank the ship. I've reverted each time, on the basis that the most widely accepted claim is that North Korea sank the ship, particularly as it's the official explanation for the event. While there are conflicting claims, the most credible one is that North Korea is responsible; IMO, that's the one that should go in the infobox, with others mentioned elsewhere in the article, which they already are (eg, Chinese). Anyone else have thoughts on the matter. (Incidentally, I've contacted the editor twice at their talk page, no response.) Cheers, C628 ( talk) 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone named Clerkenwell removed the (allegedly) in front of the PRK Navy in the infobox. I undid this change, though I realize 'allegedly' is generally frowned upon, I didn't put it there, C628 did, so I was just returning it to the previous state. I figured C628, being a veteran, would know when 'allegedly' was appropriate. -- Be gottlieb ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
We should form a consensus on the use of the word alleged then. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contribs 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Switching to a more ambiguous infobox which nevertheless still included North Korea is not sufficient to allay the grievances presented by myself and others above. Also the use of flag icon underscores this. __ meco ( talk) 05:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle Box is inappropriate at the moment. The 'participation' of North Korean vessels is only alleged in the JIG report, the validity of which has been substantially challenged (see POV discussion, among others).-- Be gottlieb ( talk) 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that as the article currently stands it is very good. It describes the situation perfectly without stating anything as fact and states the matter is till ongoing. I don't know what the article was like before, and what disputes you guys may have had, but I think you have it right at this precise moment. -- 86.24.162.140 ( talk) 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved from top to be in proper order.
C628 (
talk) 14:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a POV Check on this article because it does not comply
The article, as it stands now, asserts numerous increasingly contentious assertions as facts, and does not give proportional importance to credible evidence which contradicts this official line. User Hyunjin Ahn (see section 'First Comments' (now archived)) has been very helpful in going through the far more balanced Korean language version of this article.
One example of contravention of NPOV from the intro paragraph
The claims have been disputed by journalists, scientists and other experts from South Korea and around the world. It is inaccurate to frame doubt about the findings of the 'team of international experts' to reside exclusively in (assumedly biased) China. Please see this report from one of the (dissenting) South Korean members of this team posted to a prominent SK political blog, it is very detailed in its refutation of the 'official story' as parroted, too uncritically, in my opinion, in the wikipedia article. http://www.seoprise.com/board/view.php?table=seoprise_12&uid=154146
Another example, the use of a 'Battle Box' instead of a more neutral 'Infobox' on the right side. It is, according to all current information, no longer clear if this this was a military confrontation, the description of the NK Navy as a belligerent in this case is, if not premature, incorrect. There is a lot of good information in the discussions above and in the archive which should be factored into a more balanced an nuanced presentation of the event as a whole. -- Be gottlieb ( talk) 12:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a wikipedia veteran, but here are my thoughts: it would be better to present this as a "he said - she said" situation, rather than an "official" versus "conspiracy" account of events. The South Korean's findings were not drafted by an open, independent investigation--rather they were made by employees of governments' militarys, the drafters' names were not made public, and they never demonstrated the effectiveness of their methodology. As authors of Wikipedia, we cannot realistically portray South Korea's (weighty) accusations as authoritative because they have not gone through the same type rigor as a scientific article in, say for example, Nature or Science. Wikipedia authors should give weight to findings based on how rigorous the methodology used to produce/discover them are. Authors should not weight findings based on how many times they've been heard or on who's saying them. Without a discussion of methodology, we cannot treat other narratives as fringe or minority (China says it happened by accident, Russia is not saying what it has found). Wallers ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this section to discuss whether the reference to an explosion should remain unqualified in the section "Sinking of Cheonan". Not only the explosion itself but the official time of the incident is still a matter of debate. According to several investigators, including member of the the JIG (ROK Official investigation) Mr S.C. Shin, the official time of the distress call was 9:15, not 9:22 as reported here in WP. (I know the reference looks flaky but, it should be acknowledged that seoprise.com is famous in Korea (I think one of the top 100 sites in Korea according to Alexa) for playing a role similar to Wikileaks)
But back to the explosion itself. Mr. Shin in the above link discounts the likelihood of there having been an explosion. At their press conference at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Tokyo on July 9th, 2010 Professor JJ Suh of Johns Hopkins University and Seung-Hun Lee, a Korean-born physicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville presented some strong scientific arguments against the JIG (official) claim that the Cheonan had been sunk by a torpedo, or by an explosion of any kind. (the video has some audio problems, but most is fine. also, some of their arguments leave something to be desired, but there is enough good material here to cast serious aspersions on the official version of events, including scientifically defensible claims that some officially reported evidence has been falsified).
Part 1 of press conference
Part 2 of press conference
Part 3 of press conference
Part 4 of press conference
This is an earlier article by Prof. Suh in which some of the evidence shown in the video appears a little more clearly.
The Russian investigative team is not saying much,
but apparently they don't believe in the official torpedo story either.
WADR to WP:Undue, and WP:NPOV The official claim that there was an explosion near the Cheonan before it sunk is not backed up by any substantial evidence, and indeed has been contradicted by eyewitness and even official logs. The contention that there was an explosion and the insinuation that this was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan should be reviewed and qualified.--
Be gottlieb (
talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
After reading the Chosun Ilbo article cited, and referring to this BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8591366.stm it appears that the Captain may not have been in a very good position to ascertain what in fact caused the explosion, trapped as he was in his cabin. Therefore I would like to put it to the editors here that we remove the sensational assertion "We are being attacked by the enemy" from its prominent place at the top of the article, and place it in the JIG report section.
Also, the first official military reports seemed to exclude the likelihood of North Korean involvement before they assserted it a few days later.
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/413450.html --
Be gottlieb (
talk) 07:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"Initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, "
"South Korean officials initially downplayed suggestions that North Korea was responsible for the sinking."