Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

S Korean response to N Korean offer?

Regarding:

North Korea offered to send their own investigative team to review the evidence compiled by South Korea,[103] and the Hankyoreh quoted Kim Yeon-chul, professor of unification studies at Inje University, commenting on the offer: "It is unprecedented..."

Has there been a south korean response? If so that should be stated in the same section of the article. If not, it should be added that "As of early August 2010, the South has not responded" or similar wording.Harel (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality discussion...

...sort of died. Comments on the current state of the article, any suggestions, is it neutral enough for the tag to go down? C628 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

the neutrality discussion "died" because we all chipped in to make this a more nuanced article, but I believe there are still a few issues, particularly with the first paragraph. Since, in light of recent developments, it is questionable whether Sweden was part of the investigation at all, the new 'final version' of the report steps back on the submarine issue http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/439708.html (second to last paragraph), even the article you referenced in the normally right(i.e. in this case, government)-leaning Korea Times inserts some doubt at the end.

It might even be salient, if this is backed up, to mention that, apparently, according to the Democratic Party of Korea (main opposition, current incarnation of the Kim Dae Jung-Noh Moo Hyun political wing in Korea), 2 of 3 S.Koreans do not trust (the) Cheonan report.

so, yeah, it's almost there. Anyone else?--Be gottlieb (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, and one other thing in the Sinking of Cheonan section. The phrasing "Soon after the incident, the captain of the Cheonan contacted the fleet headquarters to say: "We are being attacked by the enemy." needs some help, since, it appears he was 'trapped in his cabin' at the time and thus was not in any position to really be able to ascertain the source or nature of the disturbance. --Be gottlieb (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we have separate articles for the ship and its sinking smacks of POV. It is WP:RECENTISM & WP:UNDUE. In this case, it is part of its own article and a separate sinking article. But "ROKS Cheonan" itself is mentioned in 43 other articles and the sinking ("ROKS Cheonan sinking") is referred to in 26 articles. My gosh! Compare and consider other significant ship sinkings. The USS Arizona (BB-39) has an article, but its sinking is described in its basic article and in the larger attack on Pearl Harbor. (Indeed, the US lost 3 battleships and 6 aircraft carriers in WWII List of United States Navy losses in World War II. Is there an article for each of those sinkings?) Similarly, the German battle cruiser SMS Lützow was sunk during the WWI Battle of Jutland. Over eight thousand (8,645) sailors died in this battle! Is there a separate article for the sinking of each ship? No. Keeping this article separate from the main ship article contributes to WP:BIAS. Creating and keeping it as a separate article is nothing more than editors saying "I think something notable happened here because I see it in the news and I'm concerned about the tensions between the Koreas." Moving it into the main article will lessen this problem.--S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!--Be gottlieb (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again... C628 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not say we are going round-n-round the mulberry bush on this. Rather, the outrage over the unfortunate deaths has lessened and both nK and sK are now concerned with other issues. The 2010 Copiapó mining accident and rescue of 33 miners now has us feeling good about the world. So, it is time for WP:WORLDVIEW to take over and allow us to merge the articles.--S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Background section review

I removed some of Prof. Cumming's opinion from the history section. It seemed to me to set up a NK revenge scenario for the sinking, that, while plausible, is just one of any number of possible reasons the ship sunk (many also not directly involving NK), and therefore does not need to be inordinately made prominent by including it in the history section, which, to my mind, should contain only impartial, factual background material.

In fact I am not sure if the extra section "History of ship sinkings on both sides" is really necessary, or whether the salient information can be incorporated in a general Background section.
Otherwise, it may be appropriate to have separate geographical and historical background sections.--Be gottlieb (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

live right now: http://gadebate.un.org/Portals/1/statements/634213566939062500KP_en.pdfLihaas (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read - page 5 gives essentially a restatement of the DPRK position on the Cheonan sinking. I don't think it's really worth adding to the article, though it would be an "official" statement rather than from a newspaper. Rwendland (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldnt that be better? From the horse's mouthLihaas (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox (again)

I added the Russian Navy investigation under inquiries in the Infobox, however, the question arose (to me) whether we really need the inquiries and charges content there. The charges are contentious anyway and the controversy is not really explainable in the limited space of the infobox. Opinions?--Be gottlieb (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article is definitely not neutral. It cites a lot of random people and random newspapers complaining about South Korea doing this, the report not being accurate, etc. Yet I have no reason to believe any of these people are experts or otherwise noteworthy over and above everyone else. I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Bart Simpson points to some guy on the back of a book about UFO coverups - "and this guy is the head of the UFO department at the university of Tahoma!"

I also think this article should be merged with the ship article. John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you'd give specific examples, it would be a lot easier to do something about it. C628 (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

History of ship sinking section obviously biased against south korea

The most important event cited in this section references the Battle of Daecheong, but from what we know of that incident, it was almost entirely provoked by the North Koreans. If one reads the quotes in this uncited section, one gets the impression that South Korea has been provoking North Korea in these waters, when in fact the opposite appears to be true. While I think it is important to denote past ship to ship conflicts, it should be completely rewritten to remove any bias. The strange quotations here should also be removed. M4bwav (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the section so it relies less on quotes and, hopefully, doesn't seem to pass judgement on either side. I did leave the last quote in, but it can be removed too, I don't have strong feelings either way. C628 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the action on this issue. It reads a lot more neutral now. Though I feel that it could be neutralized further, I think it is sufficient for the moment. M4bwav (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think it can be improved, feel free to do so; I'm hardly the gatekeeper for the article. C628 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

„Full report“

Was the full report actually published? The Korea Times says so, but where is it? --Babelfisch (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the first extlink in the article. Rwendland (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Undocumented Japanese media reports

Leerizal4062 (talk · contribs) added some text to the article which was promptly removed because it lacked any references. This is the removed text:

According to Sankei Newspaper and other Japanese Media, Conclusions from analyses and investigations revealed that the torpedo was produced from a North Korean machinery factory on January 18.

the Japanese media, quoting from the US Intelligence, reported "the torpedoes had been produced from a mechanical factory located in Pyeongannam-do of Gaecheon-si region, North Korea which were also planned to be sold to the South American Nations."

The North Korean Torpedo used in the attack that sunk the South Korean vessel was produced through a method that the North Korea had discovered from the soviet union which had been performed in at least 6 different factories including the Pyeongannam-do and the Hamkyungbuk-do factory.

The media also reported stating from the discoveries of the US intelligence that the components and the type of Torpedo that had been discovered to be used in the sinking of the South Korean vessel could only be found and produced in the factories of North Korea and nowhere else.

If we can procure the requisite sources for this information, I guess this may be appropriate for inclusion into the article? __meco (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the text, beyond the need for a bit of copyediting, I just have a problem with the lack of sources. If it can be referenced, by all means add it in. (I also added the standard {{uw-unsourced1}} template onto the user's talk page, and directed them to this thread.) C628 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

just a caveat to Sankei Shimbun :

Sankei Shimbun (産経新聞). Right-wing or conservative, pro-American and anti-Chinese newspaper. 6th ranked in daily circulation—around 2 million per day. Known as the nationalist's newspaper and upheld formidably by the right. Affiliated with Fuji TV. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Japan)

these data have not been reported in any credible source. I provisionally oppose the inclusion of this 'report'.--Be gottlieb (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sankei Shimbun is meets WP's criteria as a reliable source. Text attribution can be added if desired. Whoever added the information needs to give the publication date of the information from Sankei. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion here--I do not believe North Kor. torpedoed the Cheonan. I'm not north korean, but i'm just saying. Kim Jongil is not stupid. he maybe crazy, but he also does not want to get into deep conflict (unlike how Pres. Lee myungbak and many ignorant americans believe that his reckless). He maybe reckless in many affairs, but certainly not with North-South Korean affairs. Both countries are walking a tight rope of ceasefire as other countries (US, China, Japan, Russia) eye these things with contempt--they want both countries to be kept separate (ESPECIALLY THE USA government). I'm not being biased toward any country or whatnot, but I know Kim did not torpedo the ship. there are some reasonable evidence too. Many Koreans, I know, have one ultimate wish--TO BE UNITED Think the Germans--they were united. So as the Yemen, and vietnam. Why not Korea? it's because the situation is a lot more complicated than before. The Cheonan rumors (esp in USA) are only fabricated to undermine the hope of the Koreas uniting.

Provisionally agree. Kim didn't torpedo, but most South Koreans don't want to be united with North Korea. Do you have any ground in your opinion? Most Germans also are regreting the uniting mostly for economical problems. So are South Koreans. Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So division is a good thing, right? Can't wait until Lee Myung-bak gets kicked off of office. Such a puppet of American gov't. Bring back another person like Roh Moo-hyun! People like him can stick their face at the US and say, "You don't need to control us." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.212.55 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah, one thing, THEY WILL UNITE ONE DAY. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.93.192 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We need new sections called "Testimony of the Survivors", "First-hand Witnesses" and possibly "Testimony of Rescue Divers"

Before the survivors were gagged by the South Korean government, they did give a few interviews immediately after the incident.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_63804.html

"Some stated they had heard two loud explosions and immediately felt the ship tilt about 90 degrees to starboard."

How does the above testimony jive with the idea that a single torpedo struck the ship?

According to a documentary produced by Hankyoreh/HaniTV, marine guards claimed, in a hand-written statement that they saw two white flashes, not huge water columns that would be consistent with a torpedo blast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDITkTEDVNA

Also, one of the investigators, Professor Shin Young-shik of KAIST, describes injuries that would occur in the event of a 100G torpedo explosion - injuries that were not found in any of the survivors. This is important expert testimony, which never turns up in the unsigned report. As the report was unsigned - and as at least two investigators, Shin Young-shik and Shin Sang-cheol don't seem to agree with the conclusions, doesn't that call into question the authorship of the report itself?

From the above linked Korea Times piece, we find the following: "[The civilian divers] have raised the suspicion that the military response might have been lagging, and say the authorities could try to conceal the actual timeline of the incident."

Seems to me it'd fit just about perfect in the "early speculation" part of the article, except for the last quote, which is pure speculation by people who are hardly experts on the incident; see WP:CRYSTAL. C628 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

agree on the divers, but since when are handwritten official testimonies "speculations"?

As for concealing the actual timeline of the incident, the officials have stated five different times for the "explosion": 9:45, 9:30, 9:35, 9:15, and 9:22.

Also, on Shin Sang-cheol's website we find this gem: "Six Problems on the Investigation Process of the Cheonan Sinking

. . . Hiding of the TOD image-recordings of the Cheonan breaking into half and sinking and changing of words

● The military initially had claimed that there was no TOD images, but partially released these images three times on March 30, April 1 and April after refutation by military retirees. However, it did not release the TOD images at the time of the incident and claimed that the released images are all it had every time. ● However, reports followed later that there are no blind spots in taking TOD images because they are taken automatically, and the media reported testimonies from unanimous informants that they have seen images at the time of the incident. National Assembly person Lee Jung-hee also spoke of the same thing at the National Assembly. ● According to testimonies of unanimous witnesses, the Cheonan was sailing with no problem but suddenly broke into half after which the stern sank in five minutes and the bow after floating about 20 minutes on water suddenly tilted toward the right and started to sink. They said that there was no water column. ● Several military officers sued National Assembly person Lee for defamation. However, additional TOD images were released on May 30, claiming that the images were taken after 40 seconds of the incident. There had not been any apology for perjury and they claimed that the suit is still effective against the assembly member."

Should we have a new section titled "Government's concealment of evidence"?

No. Absolutely not. Blatant violation of WP:NPOV without numerous and diverse sources saying that the government has indeed concealed evidence. A single source saying that there have been discrepencies in evidence is completely insufficient evidence. C628 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging with ship article seems a little silly at this point

This is a very important article and there is no need to merge it with the article about the ship itself. Because this is a major political/military/media event, it obviously needs it's own article, like many other similar events. Therefore I am going to remove the merge tag.M4bwav (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is an act of (unintentional) vandalism. You cannot remove a merger tag whilst the discussion is open, and it would not be appropriate for you to close it. The proposal has been up for just over a week, and whilst there is more opposition that support this is not "votes for merger". A decision needs to be taken by an uninvolved admin once the discussion has concluded. At the very least it needs another week. John Smith's (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect your wasting a lot of everyone's time on a non-issue. I'm sorry you've made this merger your pet project, but please don't sling accusations around. I won't fight your need for what you believe is due process, but your merger proposal is practically unintentional vandalism itself.M4bwav (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good-faith efforts to improve an article are never vandalism. He may have been mistaken, but M4bway wasn't vandalizing, intentionally or not. Nor, for that matter, was John Smith's. C628 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I should have played it cooler, but I felt something needed to be said and I let my frustration get the better of me.M4bwav (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us remember

A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor

Everyone should stay cool and there should be no personal attacks. Good-faith edits are not vandalism. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an awesome flow chart, I hadn't seen it yetM4bwav (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Info box (again)

Rather than wade in and edit, especially since the info box has been a point of contention in the past, I though I'd express a couple of concerns here:

Firstly, the participants include "presumed" PRK. It would also be true, surely, that since there are conflicting conclusions drawn by, for example, China, to say that the PRK were "presumed" not to be involved. This is a self-defeating term, then, and surely presumption on Wikipedia should be avoided. I don't mean to add bias through word choice, but perhaps "disputed" or "alleged" would work better. Allegations can be backed up by sources, presumptions not so much.

For that matter, though the article itself notes other inquirers, these are not present in the infobox.

And on a different note, there is much prominence afforded to the specific inquiry which reached one conclusion, but the opposing voices are hand-waved with "disputed". Since the JIG investigation is identified, has its version of events noted, and even the methods expanded upon, it does not exactly seem good form to restrict the at-a-glance counter-argument to four words. I would suggest that a conclusion of a report is not a "charge" (as it is not being taken to court), and that (as a very nonspecific example) a substitution could be along the lines of: "JIG claim PRK as aggressor; PRK and China refute this claim; Russia refuse to release findings; UN Securities Council fails to identify aggressor." That way all nations are duly credited (JIG with a link to the relevant section that identifies individual nations present in that group, to stop it becoming too lengthy). ROK public speculation need not be included in the infobox, in my opinion, as they do not have the prominence of a government representative, a representative of governments, or an industry expert. Certainly, though, keep them in the article.

Talking about who is in and who isn't, Canada make a brief disappearance from the investigation team, according to the the article when it cites the Washington Post. Also, are there any more details of who made up the other countries' teams of "experts" and "investigators"? This is unrelated to the infobox, but it's such a minor point it hardly seems worth its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.92.114 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

56 + 46 =/= 104

It says the ship was carrying 104 members onboard, with 46 wounded and 56 killed. This would give us a total of 102 people. --Bluesoju (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

UNSC Presidential Statement

I don't think the recent change about the UNSC Presidential Statement conclusion is correct. The pertinent part of the statement is:

"In view of the findings of the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group led by the Republic of Korea with the participation of five nations, which concluded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was responsible for sinking the Cheonan, the Security Council expresses its deep concern.

The Security Council takes note of the responses from other relevant parties, including from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.

Therefore, the Security Council condemns the attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan."

I don't think that can correctly be portrayed as "condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the attack". It does not convey a firm view on who the attacker is. So I think our original summary as "condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker" is correct. Any views before I change back? Rwendland (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should merge ship article into this one

The ROKS Cheonan article should be merged here, because it is largely a duplication of this article. I know this was discussed earlier, but I think it should be revisited.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've put the neutrality tag back because I think the article is too biased in undermining the report's conclusions that North Korea was to blame. For example, one entire sub-section is labelled "Other international research which conflicts with the official JIG report". Why is it exclusively for conflict, rather than agreement? I have retitled this, but I think it needs to have a broader, less partisan collection of information or be merged with others. I have also cropped the information from the Nature article - people can read the article. I don't see why the allegations repeated in that article (it was not research by Nature) need to be written in full here.

Then there's the poll that suggests most South Koreans didn't trust the report. That is not what the results of the poll showed, it was that almost as many trusted it as didn't - it was just that many were undecided/didn't know.

There are other issues as well, but I don't have the time to list them all here. I really suggest that other editors work to improve the balance in the article, but perhaps more importantly the structure. There are far, far too many sub-sections, and I would remove all of the sub-sub-sections from "reaction" if possible. John Smith's (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now modified the lead section. Blogs can't be used as sources, and the allegations over the Russian report were not confirmed. It's also important to show that China was one of few countries to criticise the report, most that had official reactions supported South Korea and/or condemned Pyongyang. I also don't think that Nature should be cited in the lead because it was a repeat of other criticisms, not a detailed report of its own into what happened. Otherwise it would have to be balanced out by "proiment sources" that agreedw with the report. And what is a "prominent source" anyway? John Smith's (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your stance on the neutrality of the article, it is far too sympathetic to North Korea's public stance. But as far as the merger tag, I feel I must point out that one or more merge proposals have already failed for this article, does that not indicate that the consensus is against merging? Rough consensus appears to once again oppose a merger, what is to be gained by spamming (figuratively speaking) merge proposals. Ultimately should not consensus, rather than bureaucracy, drive the destiny of the article?M4bwav (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The merger discussion will be closed in due course, but if you want to put a limit on it, I'm happy for an admin to close it if there is no positive feedback within a week. This is the first merger proposal I have made for the article, and the last one was not properly advertised, proposed or closed. It warranted another. And with all due respect I think we should focus on the neutrality problem. John Smith's (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enoughM4bwav (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's been more than a week, are you cool with removing the tag? Granted an admin has not ruled on it, but I think the general consensus is against it, and therefore there is no need for an admin. What do you say?M4bwav (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot remove the tag until the discussion has been closed. I will ask an admin that's been working on mergers to take a view. Moreover, please do not discuss the matter further in this discussion. This is about neutrality, not the merger. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I needed to reply here because it created conversational continuity. I look forward to seeing the article improved by the removal of the merge tag. Thank you.M4bwav (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article's problem now is not neutrality - it was pretty reasonable on that score as the twists of the story unfolded; but that since the RIG final report was published (late and without fanfare, unlike the earlier press event summaries) very little has been done to update the article. I think a summary of the RIG final report (which has impressive detail in 312 pages) should be presented near the top, and the rest presented as more of a History of Events. It is poor that "early speculation" is encountered before more solid information in the article. I suspect that would make it read more neutral. But it would be a fair bit of work to do properly, as the report is so large. Rwendland (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a bit of background, a lot of the stuff in question was added in response to POV concerns going the other way a few months ago; the rest of the talk page and the archive has some history on that. C628 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The article needs to take an overall, balanced view - but sometimes that means dismissing conspiracy theories as fringe views not worth entertaining in substance. It's not helpful to just stuff randomly critical articles in there. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that the Cheonan was sunk by a sea mine is hardly a conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ROKS Cheonan sinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100526012553/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)