![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment very little information is provided on the conflicting territorial claims on Socotra Rock. The positions of both the PRC and ROK should be provided to maintain balance. - Loren 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the reason China has protested the Korean claim of the rocks is that, if the Koreans claim it's an island and settle it, it would extend their EEZ out even more and thereby causing a bigger overlap of EEZ between the two countries and if the EEZ is split, China will get a smaller portion than if it's declared a rock rather than an island.
The article is imbalanced... especially the comment about the Marado's stele "southermost xxx of South Korea". That's so WP:OR & groundless. South Korean research facilities in Antarctica should be considered too - that is, the stele was put in place even at the existence of S. Korean Antarctican research facilities --> that argument is complete crap from CPOV. Wikimachine 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Socotra rock was "claimed" in a way by the placing of a maritime beacon in 1987, which the PRC hasn't objected to until 2012. So for 15 years south korea was administering a naval beacon without china's objection. the PRC has been claiming a number of sub-sea formations as have a number of other countries. [1] We all know that the PRC has been claiming territories left right and centre for glorious leader; Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet. The Air Defence Zone expansion is just another step.
References
This article lists "Parangdo" among the alternative names for Ieodo, but in the article on Parangdo, (which appears to have been translated from the Japanese wikipedia article 波浪島) Parangdo is claimed to be "an imaginary island which South Korea requested to include in The abandoned territory of Japan". Of course, the name could have been used for more than one island, or one of the claims could be false, but we should really find out which. Rōnin 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's been moving the article back to Suyan Rock (the Chinese name) and changed this page into a redirect. I've reverted it, and hope it will remain here. Rōnin 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now Suyan Rock has been protected along with Socotra Rock, so we now have two articles with roughly the same content, except that Suyan Rock has a different title and a slight Chinese bias. A request to make Suyan Rock a redirect has been filed. Rōnin 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on, if you check the page history it should be back to a redirect. Yet the article doesn't seem to have updated. - Loren 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Socotra Rock should be a redirect to Suyan Rock, as it is in first version, how many people use suyan rcok while how many use socotra?
why should keep suyan as a redirect, at first socotra is a redirect. and I hope it keeps in suyan rock, and this socotra article is full of korean bias. I request it to convert back into a redirect.- yeahsoo 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well,the EZZ should based on the natural division of the continental shelf,by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while this article switch the focus on the distance, I agree the Korean island is more close, but that does not mean anything, Can we say Guan belongs to Japan since Guan is more close to Japan? like the new picture, only show the distance, gives people a illusion that Korean should claim it, but actually these resources are all from Korea. I request to unprotect it and allow me add pics of the continental shelf division.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.137.232.85 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
This paragraph is unacceptible because: 1. It contains unverified assertions (travel companies advertise Marado as the southermost island of Korea. China claims X) ( WP:V) 2. It contains conclusory statements not supported by facts. (Proof that Suyan Rock...) ( WP:NOR) -- Zonath Yak 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The image is acceptable because this stone is there even before South Korea become a independent country after korean war.and there is no travel agents by that time, and the conclusion is clear, sine this Malado is southmost, then Socotra is not Korean. maybe you can rule here but there is ten thousands records in google prove that Malado is south most, it is not claimed by China, chech japan wiki, malado also showed southmost of Korea. please do not pretent it is not true by ignore the thing you do not like, it is not wiki spirit. To admin, someone removed Malado article, any reason? - Yeahsoo
Even if it were true? It is true, even you deny, but most Korean people admit that. Anyway, why not let the image be there, let's change the caption with no bias, -
Yeahsoo
No, I think it is very important to Socotra Rock issue, since Marado is the base point for 12 miles marginal sea.
Socotra is not even a proof to claim EEZ. That is what I think and maybe yours as well, but not Korean thought. Korean even call Suyan(Socotra) an "Island". So it is Korea want to claim it as a territory. Although the government deny they claim Socotra as an island. But if you live in Korea, you would see on TV, on newspapers, all claim "Ieodo" as their new land, ok? Someone even think Ieodo a new "Southmost of Korea". This is simply Korean tactics,let the world accepts it's belonging to Korea first, then claim it as an island. Hence, to keep the picture is absolutely neccessary. It prevent Korea to claim it as an island, and Marado is the base point Korean to caculate the distance to Socotra. - Yeahsoo
--- - Yeahsoo 09:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
and official korean website [6],so do you still want to say it is original? I do not understand, you see that photo, but you still want to say it is orginal, you mean I made the photo? If you talk about the relationship between Socotra and Marado is orginal,check this, if you seach socotra rock issue in google in Chinese language, all most every record will related with Marado, so it is very clear they are related. maybe you think they are unrelated, but you can not make others think same way.
and all items in history need a citation, don't they? Otherwise, it falls under Wikipedia's policy of No original research and should be removed.
Does Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China[ [15]]? if it is really,I would reflect it in a picture.-- Forestfarmer 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I will provide a continental shelf map later today, so let's see how those rock sits. In order not to provoke someone, I will not overwrite the top one. plus I will add history about "Socotra Rock is not confirmed untill Cheju Univ's research in 1984." you can find this on vaver.com same ref already listed in the page [16]? meanwhile,1963-5-1 China's first self-made 10k ton ship "yue jing" sunk at Suyan Rock, although the map showes there is the rock close by, but fail to get the accurate ship location. They announced "attacked by topedo", it almost caused war. Japan's “Pan-Asia radio” released the news on the next day. After carefuly research lead by prime minister Zhou, China found out the ship is hit by the Suyan rock. This proves no later than 1963, China already mapped Suyan Rock. [17]Anyone has different opinion, you may speak in advance. -- yeahsoo 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I found the evidence which Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China in Japanese Yahoo news [18].thank everyone.but User:yeahsoo uploaded more detailed map.is the map really clear about copyright ?-- Forestfarmer 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've commented out the material about Marado for now, because there is no explanation of how it is relevant to the two countries' emphatically non-territorial dispute over Socotra Rock. If the content is restored, please also add an explanation of its relevance. -- Visviva 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This item already gets common sense by the previous discussion. It contains no bias to any side, only list fact, it will be restored. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see someone add "1951 territoy of Korea" bronze marker, it is Korea claim as a territory, that is why Marado stands important fact and affect this issue.As soon as Korea anounce Socotra is NOT Korean territory, Marado can be removed. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt if this site is reliable, it is more like Korean propganda site, a lot of the ref in this page come from the only one site, this reduce the credibility of this article. See, the station is to claim this rock, then you use the station site to prove its's history and belonging, this is called "A VICIOUS CIRCLE".Admin, I suggest this site can only be external link, not as a ref, should remove the ref and please provide ref from some other site. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
--- government-run ==propaganda :)We need scholar source. And this site does not have ref, it might be original research---- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
---I add Baidu since it is similar site like wiki, while that research site is run by gov and you can do research on a ship. To build this platform, everyone know the real motivation Korean denied,evenif you want build platform build it in your territory sea instead of dispute area, it will be much reasonable. -- Yeahsoo 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a great addition to the article. Thanks to Yeahsoo for providing it. However, I would be very grateful if some clear source information is provided. At present the image description page simply says "author=Yeahsoo." However, this map was presumably not drawn freehand ; it must be based on preexisting data. I couldn't find a clear source. Can the source of the ocean-depth data please be provided, either here or on the article page? Thanks, -- Visviva 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
---here I updated the licensing.-- Yeahsoo
I checked Shan Hai Jin 14th charpter in Wikisource. It says:
大荒之中,有山名曰猗天苏门,日月所生。
not as written in the reference link as:
大荒之中,有山名曰猗天苏山,日月所生。
Which is correct? Anyway, I think the source should be more authentic one rather than a post on BBS. Jjok 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The description is based on unreliable source edited similar way to wikipedia. Actually, the initial part which is referring about the rock is copy-edit from the Chinese wikipedia article. Another part, "我国自组建北洋水师以来的海图即明确标明有东海苏岩,比韩国早一百年" also does not have any citations. Even the Chinese wikipedia article is asking for the sources.
On the other hand, the referred page also has a description: "隋唐以来日本、高丽循海路来中原进贡的使臣和留学生,以及唐、宋、明、清历代东渡扶桑的中华人士均曾目睹过苏岩,并留下了文献记载,历史古籍确认苏岩属中国无误。". Why don't you bring the sources from Chinese history books first before relying on unreliable source? I'm interested in them. Jjok 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The time-line is inconsistent in its use of tense. -- User:Kdammers 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the positions, this article is a mess. It is really messy grammatically and needs a thorough edit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.157.23 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I have fully protected the article for a week, and restored the dispute to the state it was in prior to the current edit war. Please note that I am not saying that the pre-dispute version is correct...but I am saying that all of the parties need to talk about it here instead of edit warring. Any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in blocks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 17:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"1900: Socotra Rock is discovered by the British merchant vessel Socotra." Hm. Does this mean that the place had risen from the sea around this time? It is not very likely that Korean fishermen would have missed this phenomenon in earlier days. My Bing translation of the source does indeed use the word "discover," but I just question its accuracy. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
For that reason, I would move into Ieodo if anyone doesn't object. Thanks. -- Garam ( talk) 17:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment very little information is provided on the conflicting territorial claims on Socotra Rock. The positions of both the PRC and ROK should be provided to maintain balance. - Loren 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the reason China has protested the Korean claim of the rocks is that, if the Koreans claim it's an island and settle it, it would extend their EEZ out even more and thereby causing a bigger overlap of EEZ between the two countries and if the EEZ is split, China will get a smaller portion than if it's declared a rock rather than an island.
The article is imbalanced... especially the comment about the Marado's stele "southermost xxx of South Korea". That's so WP:OR & groundless. South Korean research facilities in Antarctica should be considered too - that is, the stele was put in place even at the existence of S. Korean Antarctican research facilities --> that argument is complete crap from CPOV. Wikimachine 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Socotra rock was "claimed" in a way by the placing of a maritime beacon in 1987, which the PRC hasn't objected to until 2012. So for 15 years south korea was administering a naval beacon without china's objection. the PRC has been claiming a number of sub-sea formations as have a number of other countries. [1] We all know that the PRC has been claiming territories left right and centre for glorious leader; Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet. The Air Defence Zone expansion is just another step.
References
This article lists "Parangdo" among the alternative names for Ieodo, but in the article on Parangdo, (which appears to have been translated from the Japanese wikipedia article 波浪島) Parangdo is claimed to be "an imaginary island which South Korea requested to include in The abandoned territory of Japan". Of course, the name could have been used for more than one island, or one of the claims could be false, but we should really find out which. Rōnin 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone's been moving the article back to Suyan Rock (the Chinese name) and changed this page into a redirect. I've reverted it, and hope it will remain here. Rōnin 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now Suyan Rock has been protected along with Socotra Rock, so we now have two articles with roughly the same content, except that Suyan Rock has a different title and a slight Chinese bias. A request to make Suyan Rock a redirect has been filed. Rōnin 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going on, if you check the page history it should be back to a redirect. Yet the article doesn't seem to have updated. - Loren 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Socotra Rock should be a redirect to Suyan Rock, as it is in first version, how many people use suyan rcok while how many use socotra?
why should keep suyan as a redirect, at first socotra is a redirect. and I hope it keeps in suyan rock, and this socotra article is full of korean bias. I request it to convert back into a redirect.- yeahsoo 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well,the EZZ should based on the natural division of the continental shelf,by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while this article switch the focus on the distance, I agree the Korean island is more close, but that does not mean anything, Can we say Guan belongs to Japan since Guan is more close to Japan? like the new picture, only show the distance, gives people a illusion that Korean should claim it, but actually these resources are all from Korea. I request to unprotect it and allow me add pics of the continental shelf division.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.137.232.85 ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC).
This paragraph is unacceptible because: 1. It contains unverified assertions (travel companies advertise Marado as the southermost island of Korea. China claims X) ( WP:V) 2. It contains conclusory statements not supported by facts. (Proof that Suyan Rock...) ( WP:NOR) -- Zonath Yak 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The image is acceptable because this stone is there even before South Korea become a independent country after korean war.and there is no travel agents by that time, and the conclusion is clear, sine this Malado is southmost, then Socotra is not Korean. maybe you can rule here but there is ten thousands records in google prove that Malado is south most, it is not claimed by China, chech japan wiki, malado also showed southmost of Korea. please do not pretent it is not true by ignore the thing you do not like, it is not wiki spirit. To admin, someone removed Malado article, any reason? - Yeahsoo
Even if it were true? It is true, even you deny, but most Korean people admit that. Anyway, why not let the image be there, let's change the caption with no bias, -
Yeahsoo
No, I think it is very important to Socotra Rock issue, since Marado is the base point for 12 miles marginal sea.
Socotra is not even a proof to claim EEZ. That is what I think and maybe yours as well, but not Korean thought. Korean even call Suyan(Socotra) an "Island". So it is Korea want to claim it as a territory. Although the government deny they claim Socotra as an island. But if you live in Korea, you would see on TV, on newspapers, all claim "Ieodo" as their new land, ok? Someone even think Ieodo a new "Southmost of Korea". This is simply Korean tactics,let the world accepts it's belonging to Korea first, then claim it as an island. Hence, to keep the picture is absolutely neccessary. It prevent Korea to claim it as an island, and Marado is the base point Korean to caculate the distance to Socotra. - Yeahsoo
--- - Yeahsoo 09:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
and official korean website [6],so do you still want to say it is original? I do not understand, you see that photo, but you still want to say it is orginal, you mean I made the photo? If you talk about the relationship between Socotra and Marado is orginal,check this, if you seach socotra rock issue in google in Chinese language, all most every record will related with Marado, so it is very clear they are related. maybe you think they are unrelated, but you can not make others think same way.
and all items in history need a citation, don't they? Otherwise, it falls under Wikipedia's policy of No original research and should be removed.
Does Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China[ [15]]? if it is really,I would reflect it in a picture.-- Forestfarmer 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I will provide a continental shelf map later today, so let's see how those rock sits. In order not to provoke someone, I will not overwrite the top one. plus I will add history about "Socotra Rock is not confirmed untill Cheju Univ's research in 1984." you can find this on vaver.com same ref already listed in the page [16]? meanwhile,1963-5-1 China's first self-made 10k ton ship "yue jing" sunk at Suyan Rock, although the map showes there is the rock close by, but fail to get the accurate ship location. They announced "attacked by topedo", it almost caused war. Japan's “Pan-Asia radio” released the news on the next day. After carefuly research lead by prime minister Zhou, China found out the ship is hit by the Suyan rock. This proves no later than 1963, China already mapped Suyan Rock. [17]Anyone has different opinion, you may speak in advance. -- yeahsoo 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I found the evidence which Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China in Japanese Yahoo news [18].thank everyone.but User:yeahsoo uploaded more detailed map.is the map really clear about copyright ?-- Forestfarmer 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've commented out the material about Marado for now, because there is no explanation of how it is relevant to the two countries' emphatically non-territorial dispute over Socotra Rock. If the content is restored, please also add an explanation of its relevance. -- Visviva 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This item already gets common sense by the previous discussion. It contains no bias to any side, only list fact, it will be restored. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As you can see someone add "1951 territoy of Korea" bronze marker, it is Korea claim as a territory, that is why Marado stands important fact and affect this issue.As soon as Korea anounce Socotra is NOT Korean territory, Marado can be removed. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt if this site is reliable, it is more like Korean propganda site, a lot of the ref in this page come from the only one site, this reduce the credibility of this article. See, the station is to claim this rock, then you use the station site to prove its's history and belonging, this is called "A VICIOUS CIRCLE".Admin, I suggest this site can only be external link, not as a ref, should remove the ref and please provide ref from some other site. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
--- government-run ==propaganda :)We need scholar source. And this site does not have ref, it might be original research---- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
---I add Baidu since it is similar site like wiki, while that research site is run by gov and you can do research on a ship. To build this platform, everyone know the real motivation Korean denied,evenif you want build platform build it in your territory sea instead of dispute area, it will be much reasonable. -- Yeahsoo 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a great addition to the article. Thanks to Yeahsoo for providing it. However, I would be very grateful if some clear source information is provided. At present the image description page simply says "author=Yeahsoo." However, this map was presumably not drawn freehand ; it must be based on preexisting data. I couldn't find a clear source. Can the source of the ocean-depth data please be provided, either here or on the article page? Thanks, -- Visviva 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
---here I updated the licensing.-- Yeahsoo
I checked Shan Hai Jin 14th charpter in Wikisource. It says:
大荒之中,有山名曰猗天苏门,日月所生。
not as written in the reference link as:
大荒之中,有山名曰猗天苏山,日月所生。
Which is correct? Anyway, I think the source should be more authentic one rather than a post on BBS. Jjok 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The description is based on unreliable source edited similar way to wikipedia. Actually, the initial part which is referring about the rock is copy-edit from the Chinese wikipedia article. Another part, "我国自组建北洋水师以来的海图即明确标明有东海苏岩,比韩国早一百年" also does not have any citations. Even the Chinese wikipedia article is asking for the sources.
On the other hand, the referred page also has a description: "隋唐以来日本、高丽循海路来中原进贡的使臣和留学生,以及唐、宋、明、清历代东渡扶桑的中华人士均曾目睹过苏岩,并留下了文献记载,历史古籍确认苏岩属中国无误。". Why don't you bring the sources from Chinese history books first before relying on unreliable source? I'm interested in them. Jjok 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The time-line is inconsistent in its use of tense. -- User:Kdammers 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the positions, this article is a mess. It is really messy grammatically and needs a thorough edit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.157.23 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I have fully protected the article for a week, and restored the dispute to the state it was in prior to the current edit war. Please note that I am not saying that the pre-dispute version is correct...but I am saying that all of the parties need to talk about it here instead of edit warring. Any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in blocks. Qwyrxian ( talk) 17:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"1900: Socotra Rock is discovered by the British merchant vessel Socotra." Hm. Does this mean that the place had risen from the sea around this time? It is not very likely that Korean fishermen would have missed this phenomenon in earlier days. My Bing translation of the source does indeed use the word "discover," but I just question its accuracy. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
For that reason, I would move into Ieodo if anyone doesn't object. Thanks. -- Garam ( talk) 17:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)