Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

First comments

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)

Probably a typo for the Pennant Number. Article now shows correct ship sunk. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles contrary to EXPLOSION

Mar 31 - Please refer to an article explaining most doubts on the shipwreck of Cheonan(Korean & English translation is available). --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

- Apr 17 - "Damage trace on the tail of the ship, not by torpedo" -- Additional comments of an expert -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

- May 3 - "Revenge by armed force? Are not scared of stealth torpedo of North Korea?" -- The Navy Chief of Staff promises to revenge -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 5 - "Receiving a great pressure from the military" -- Private-Military Combined Fact-finding Group member's testimony about the situation in the group -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 9 - "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, hid video clips of TOD(Thermal Observation Device) in spite of knowing its existence" -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 18 - "Trace of scratching on the bottom of Cheon-an-hahm disappeared" -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 21 - "Photo of the torpedo of DPRK, contradicting tesimonies incease the doubt" -- here Not yet translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 21 - "Experts, '<Handwriting of No. 1 in the torpedo of DPRK> is unfamiliar'" -- here Korean-English translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 21 - "A column of water, testified unseen at first, "Sentinel's observation" comes and goes, not consistent" -- here Not yet translated --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

- Apr 19 - "Cheonan-hahm crew members, murdered. (Hypothesis of collision with US Nuclear Submarine)" -- [1] Not translated yet --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---This article has no merit. You are posting from blogs (not accredited sources) that can write anything it wants to. Ohss117 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lastest Photos

- May 20, 10:06 Photos of Cheonan-hahm in the cargo -- here --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the news reporter in the above linked news article, the navy has not opened the debated damage trace on the tail of the ship today. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 20, 11:03 Video of Cheonan-hahm in the cargo -- here --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

- May 20, 11:36 Photo of torpedo of North Korea found by the navy with Korean character handwritten on its part -- here --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article translating -- Reporter, Jin-hwan Jeon, Newsis -- Part of torpedo found in the area of the sinking with characters 'No. 1 (1번)' handwritten on it, while Private-Military Cooperated Fact Finding Group's announcing on 'the result of investigation of Cheonan-hahm' in the meeting room of the Ministry of National Defense, Yong-san, Seoul in the morning, on 20. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles showing ROK's current situation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

- May 13 - "Rep. of Korea investigating even UN Special Papporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression." -- [2] Not translated yet --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the linked article, full English text of Frank La Rue's statement in his press conference --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Additions

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)

Change of name?

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)

Sinking of ROKS Cheonan would suit me. I think this and the moving of the info should be done as a matter of priority as it looks silly to have so much duplicated content. Sadly I can't move the page myself as an IP, but it would be good if someone could do it. 94.195.129.125 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this title. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject with this, 2010 Baengnyeong incident makes more sense, particularly if there might be a skirmish or another "Baengnyeong incident" in the future. A few redirects would also suffice to point people in the right direction. We ARE talking about two countries that are, believe it or not, at war. Whatever it is that we name it, the year should be included for that reason alone. --Hourick (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)"

Does anyone here have any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is little evidence that this was a conflict and there is zero evidence that North Korea was actively involved. Most of the sources are notoriously biased, and though it isn't our place to call their intentions into question, the "Baengnyeong incident" may imply it involved another party, I believe unjustifiably. Of course, future evidence may prove North Korea was involved and then the current name would be perfectly fine. Does anyone else think "sinking" is more neutral? Diecinque (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that 2010 Baengnyeong incident is a good name for the article. 2010 is essential, as outlined by Hourick, and i'm comfortable with "incident". That doesn't imply that another party was involved, IMO. Julianhall (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you know what Baengnyeong means, this isn't a very illuminating name. I'd prefer the fuller 2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island or perhaps The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan, both of which convey the nature of the incident/accident. Rwendland (talk) 12:33, 19 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:

• 2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island Rwendland (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

I found myself, Republic Of Korea Ship. --Cheol (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sinking"?

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)

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think because it...um...SANK? Regardless of your opinions on the matter, the fact that a surface ship went below a surface permanently, before being recovered, would qualify it as a "sinking."

Next?--Hourick (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You can fire a torpedo in water knee high, the damage done to the ship was in such a manner as an external explosion. There is almost no doubt about that now from all sources.XavierGreen (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Torpedo in water knee high? It will crash the humps anywhere underwater or will explode in front of your knee. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 01:13, 10 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)

Because the ROK ship sank (with deaths) and the DPRK suffered no casualties. In this instance, if it was indeed the DPRK's fault the Cheonan sank, it would be a victory. Remember that the ROK and DPRK are technically still at war.WingsGoesWiki (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your logic on the matter, but I don't think that format is appropriate, but I can't think of another format that would suffice. It will be interesting to see how it develops from here, though. --Hourick (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the result section can be omitted or replaced with n/a? --WingsGoesWiki (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is the wrong infobox. The generic infobox, like that used in this article, should be the one used. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

a week is consensus enough. one can't wait forever, so as per Cla68's recommendation i've changed the box.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation section

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)

A re-write is needed yes, with the removal of claims and evidence relating to the torpedo (as this is now proven and mentioned above it and therefore not speculation). It should be kept, however, simply due to DPRK denial of a torpedo attack (for example, i noticed in the Speculation section it mentioned a mine). Wikipedia is neutral and should therefore include the other findings due to DPRK denial (ie "South Korean media reports have stated that the hull was found to have split cleanly, suggesting a non-explosive cause."), no matter how incredible they appear, as long as the report is noted as being the official verdict. -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the word speculation should not be used. Something like: "Refutation of official findings" would be pertinent. Speculation means: a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture or reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. The official report is based on physical evidence not "they said, we said" etc I don't know enough about the subject to do the edits myself, hence the request on this page. The word Speculation is not a neutral word as noted by its definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.18.32 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But, DPRK has lost so much, otherwise ROK, especially its governing party and president Lee Myungbak have earned so much such as Canal Project, Adminitrative city, Lee Myungbak's contradicting word about Dokdo island and coming regional election in spite of ROK's absolute defeat on the battle if it really was. There's no benefit in DPRK part in this sinking unless they intended to help ROK's governing party. That's why those speculative looking discussions are still required in this page as long as it's keeping objectivity. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I should point out we simply have a report here. Not a court case or something like that. There's no 'guilty verdict'. There's no need for 'appeals'. However I do agree the speculation section could probably do with a re-write particularly since most of it is from before the release of the report, and some of the speculation may no longer be held widely enough to be in the article (although some of the early stuff may still be relevant just because it gives readers and either of how this played out) Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 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&section=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)

Info Box

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)

It was argued above that the DPRK victory be removed, and a consensus was agreed on it as a basis of an act of terrorism (where there is no victory, such as 9/11) rather than a military skirmish/a battle.WingsGoesWiki (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow? -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 15:28, 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)

It wasn't a battle, and no one said they were a bunch of terrorists either. The DPRK cannot win something that would never have produced a winner in the first place, which is exactly what the sinking of the Cheonan is. If we look at the wikipedia article of what a victory is, you will see that it states "given to success achieved in personal combat, after military operations in general or, by extension, in any competition." . Was the sinking an example of personal combat? No. Neither was it a competition. And until the DPRK state that they fired on purpose with the intent of destroying the Cheonan, it is still not a victory. -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is "an act of terrorism" then there is a terrorist infobox. If it is a battle and "until the DPRK state they fire..." then it is not a battle either. It is synthesis to say that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If it was a battle, then the taking out of the ship (and the loss of enemy combatant lives) is a victory to the striking side.

"Success in a military campaign is considered a strategic victory, while the success in a military engagement is a tactical victory." It thus would be a "tactical victory" if it is to be called a battle. It clearly wasn't a draw.

At any rate, you cant cite something that is original research and backed by no sources whatsoever (reliable or not)Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

N. Korean navy belligerent

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)

Actually, both sides are listed as "belligerents". Per wiktionary, wikt:belligerent means "engaged in warfare" or "warring". I'd say the infobox accurately describes the situation here.

I wasn't asking about N. Korea, but the N.K NAVY which is not backed by sources.Lihaas (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bring back Controversies

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)

I was a bit surprised by that deletion too. Be wp:BOLD and revert it back if you wish. Or discuss the matter directly with WikiLaurent. Happy Editing!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:22, 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)

Wikipedia = Neutral

Your comment =/= Neutral. Which isn't surprising if you're from Seoul -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet he has a very good point. (although this president is notoriously horrible) --Komitsuki (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) AGF! Now, now. Let's remember Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. (Though I must say Kim Jung-il has always struck me as a kook!) It is a worrying situation!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Beside being a wp:synthesis, I think the section was not well written and it wasn't clear what it was about. What was the controversy exactly? Is it that SK didn't do enough to protect its navy? Or that it's dubious that NK did the attack? Or something else? Perhaps if we could clarify what this section is about, we could rewrite it in a clear and NPOV way. Laurent (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are articles that are not in English, this doesn't mean it's an independent research. There are over 50 citations in the Korean version of this page that the South Korean government is hiding many clues about this incident. It's still an on-going event. And this page now is still has a nasty biased "pro-West" POV because you deleted the controversies. Bring it back. --Komitsuki (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, i can imagine the US blacklisting wikipedia if we even dared to mention the DPRK as slightly not evil -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes. --Komitsuki (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WGW, I can't imagine the US blacklisting Wikipedia for mentioning the DPRK as slightly not evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.37.110 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Learn2RecogniseHumour or don't comment. -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral article for a unilateral event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.250.137 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Komitsuki, different language Wikipedias have different rules. What is allowable on one languages' Wikipedia may or may not be allowable on another languages' Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

strong support to bring the info back. If it is stands in the Korean version, what to stop it here? At any rate, language on sources is not a barrier to excluding anything.Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're pretty much supporting censoring Wikipedia under such faulty logic. So much for that, huh? 75.74.188.74 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Me? I'm not censoring anything. I'm bringing it backLihaas (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet manipulation

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)

That's an internet poll so we indeed can't use it in the article. Maybe the poll has been posted on some conspiracy theory boards, or maybe it's been hacked, but either way it doesn't represent the opinion of the majority. Laurent (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a Nihon Keizai Shimbun news article in Japanese claiming that the South Korean government releasing the torpedo information to the public recently is for swaying voters for the June regional election. --Komitsuki (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hacking it would be an extravagance given you can vote multiple times by just clearing your cookies. Urpunkt^☎ 02:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this article? Laurent (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

日, 북 어뢰 발표 MB 국내 지지율 노린것 (Japan, Announcement of North's Torpedo Is For Improving MB's Popularity). Problem is I can't find the Japanese version of this article. This is the Korean one. Sorry that I can't find the original one. Also, DailyNK's English article about the whole Cheonan conspiracy being popular. Please do note that DailyNK tends to be very biased as well. --Komitsuki (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Prepare for new article

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)

Very unlikely. The June 2nd regional election is more important than doing a military-related mistake. Why do westerners always insist that there will be a war? The only thing that the North Korean government can do is to root for the Democratic Party. Learn to South Korean politics? --Komitsuki (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there will be a war, but the article is getting quite long and it may be good to look at creating a new article that deal with developments further removed from the actual sinking of the Cheonan.--Andrewrutherford (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This starts to grow into some type of conflict, but let's see what type reactions and responses will come. --Kslotte (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the battle box really necessary for this?

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)

Well, since the two Koreas have BEEN at war for the past 60 years... I guess it's kind of a battle. Teafico (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a military incident between two opposing sides and therefore the battle box would seem to be appropriate. Remember that, technically, the Korean War is still going on as it only ended with an armistice being signed. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sinking of the USS Housatonic in the American Civil War is pretty similar to the Cheonan sinking, so of course the infobox is absolutely necessary for this article. Wolcott (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a recommendation above that was not countered for a week (WP:Consensus).Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The battle box should return, every submarine action article on wikipedia uses a battlebox. This should be no exception.67.84.178.0 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above and oppose the generic infobox. Wolcott (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We should merge the two conversation b/c above the reccomendation to change was no opposed.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

There was no consensus for anything, just people arguing over whether or not this was considered terrorism which is complete nonsense.XavierGreen (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a battle so the battle box is inappropriate. The "incident" infobox should be used. I'll post an example in a new section below soon. Cla68 (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the above quote on the recommendation that was not opposed by anyone for a few days. consensus doesn't wait forever, if you want to challenge it again (of course WP:Consensus can change) then develop so through talk.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"USS Maine" in related articles section?

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)

That was my first thought as well. I am going to pull it out for that reason. Seaphoto^Talk 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the reason given. "controversial sinking with war rhetoric/sensationalism" not per conspiracy, as believed.

(2 hours doesn't constitute consensus to remove)Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted someone else's addition here (even though i agree with it), pending this debate. If there is no opposition, then the editors addition are fair game.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Put CNN right now

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)

And there was a Yonhap article a while ago. 북한 전쟁선포설?.."근거 없는 유언비어" (North Korea declaring war?.. "Baseless claim"). --Komitsuki (talk) 03:47, 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)

Actually, I think it's about once a week now.[3] 173.49.135.190 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

English translation of investigation findings needed

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)

Small change

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)

Incident infobox

ROKS Cheonan sinking/Archive 1

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) Korean People's Navy (PRK) Republic of Korea Navy (ROK)
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)

Your reasoning above is incorrect. The Sinking of the Cheonan was a naval action during a war and all similar naval incidents use battleboxes. See Chesapeake–Leopard Affair and Little Belt Affair for examples where battle boxes are used. Furthermore all of the wikipedia articles on submarine actions use battleboxes, see Action of 17 February 1864, Action of 22 September 1914, Attack on Sydney Harbour, Convoy GP55, i could list more examples if neeeded.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. If it was a battle the ROK would have responded militarily and China wouldn't be reminding everyone to "keep the peace on the Korean peninsula." Let's leave this open for more comments for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a "battle", even if it is a bit one-sided. I agree with XG. --Kslotte (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You can call it what you like, battle, action, incident, but its still a military confrontation between two belligerants and as such warrents a "battle" box. The "battle" box's use is not limited to battles, but is used for all sorts of military confrontations such as campaigns, international incidents between militaries, and wars.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed addition leaves less room for unsourced statemetns such that the "north korean navy" was involved, and the commanders at least onthe N.Korean side. (the former doesnt have a source and it WP:Synthesis, and the latter did have a source i provided but someone removed it b/c it didnt tickle his fancy)Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One other thing which appears to be overlooked...the North Koreans continue to deny that they were involved. So, having a battle infobox listing them as one of the belligerents is WP:OR and WP:SYN. This can be fixed in the incident infobox I propose here by adding the phrase "(allegedly)" after PRK in the Participants section. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The north koreans have denied many of the actions they have done previously. You can do the same thing you are proposing in the battlebox with ease. For example, put allegedly in the battlebox after north korean navy. The issues you two are citing are still present no matter what type of infobox is used.XavierGreen (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the Battle infobox seems silly to me. No, it was not a battle, more properly discribed it was an incident or provocation during a period of armistice. Stating that the "strength" of the South Korean "forces" during this "battle" was 2 boats who never saw, acknowledge or were aware of who caused this means that it was no battle. Commando operation or terrorist attacks (or whatever you want to call them) don't deserve battle infoboxes anymore than the 9/11 situation does. I would apply WP:UCS and simply be descriptive as to the event and leave the whole "commanders" and "strength" info out of it because it looks silly. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also do support Cla68 use of the news event infobox as the way it is presented here. GaussianCopula (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The two corvettes according to the article think that there was some type of north korean activity in the area, thats why the second one opened fire. There are a host of similar incidents that use battle boxes. The reason why 911 does not use a battle box is because the attacks were largely against civillians, and most massacres of a similar type use incident boxes if if civillians are primarily the target. But naval and air incidents almost always use battle boxes if an infobox is used, evem if no actual combat took place. See Hainan Island incident, Panay incident, Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident, 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute, Snipe incident, General_Sherman_incident, Mayaguez_incident, Submarine incident off Kildin island, Altmark_Incident, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 13:51, 31 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)

I too oppose the generic infobox. Wolcott (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Result field in infobox

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 agree, right now the results can be surmised as a tactical north korean victory since they sunk the south korean vessel without losses, but the strategic effects of the action have yet to fold out.XavierGreen (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it. Currently without parameter result. "See reactions" isn't good either. Result "Political instability between North and South Korea"? or something similar? --Kslotte (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurent's point is one of the reasons why an Incident infobox should be used instead of a Battle infobox. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, most current military actions have little in the means of known stragic effects until sometime after the action. If you look at the Battle of Daecheong article, the only result stated is that the south koreans defeated the north militarily. The opposite is the case here, the only other results from the battle that have yet occured are that tensions have risen. For example no one knew that the Little Belt Affair contributed to the tension leading up to the War of 1812 until the war actually happened only that tensions between the two countries were increasing, similarly here the only known effects are that tensions have risen. Any other effects can simply be added later as they occur.XavierGreen (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Kslotte's suggestion so I added it to the article. Either that or no result at all is better than "Cheonan sunk". Laurent (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Analysis

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)

Who is on the international panel of experts?

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)

I did revert back "Who". Let it stay until we have some answers. --Kslotte (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically the who tag should stay ("Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation.") Why don't you want to tag it, and how long do you want to wait before retagging? Wallers (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese claims

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)

The stuff seems quite dubious to me.XavierGreen (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts too, but if it really is a claim from the Chinese, then it makes sense to have it. I'm a little leery of it because none of the major news agencies (NYTimes, BBC, AP, etc.) have run anything... C628 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the true Chinese view on this whole debacle, I think it should be added, far-fetched as it looks. Teafico (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge with ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

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)

No, because the ROK Cheonan (PCC-772) article has value in the sense of ship statistics, history, design etc.WingsGoesWiki (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But there is precedent for having a background section for articles like this which contain information on the subject ship/person/place, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (where biographical information is contained in the article), the MSC Napoli and Mary Celeste (where incident info is contained within the "bio" article). SGGH ^ping! 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, i'll put the merger notice up (because i don't want to try myself - prepare for an enormous fail there - and also just incase any wiser wikipedians want to disagree -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, you may turn out to be right anyway. Nevertheless, Support merge The articles contain very similar information. The ship article itself has very very little content that is not in this current article, and it seems that any update to the sinking incident is being put in both. WP:ONEEVENT appears to apply, and the two articles should be make into one. SGGH ^ping! 16:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This has already been extensively discussed at Talk:ROKS_Cheonan_(PCC-772)#Merge_2010_Baengnyeong_incident. I still say wait and see what happens between South Korea and North Korea. Per my comment of 21:09, 25 April 2010, there is still the possibility of further escalation. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support If it escalates into some form of retaliation/resumption of the war it wont be the "sinking of the ROK Cheonan" and therefore should have an article of its own. The Cheonan PCC-772 article itself is a summarised version of this article, with only 3 short sentences on its service history and a small info-box on general characteristics - which can easily be merged with this article. -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Wings):Your comment “if it escalates… it won’t be ‘the sinking of..’and should have an article of its own”; This is sort of why WP is no good as at current events; this article already was about a potentially escalating incident (entitled 2010_Baengnyeong_incident) and it got moved to this title. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Mjroots, I would have advocated merging the ship article into the sinking article, which would not cause the issue you mention. SGGH ^ping! 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That can be done surely? -WingsGoesWiki (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming so. Both articles contain pretty much the same information. SGGH ^ping! 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I would oppose the merge either way. The ship is notable enough to sustain an article, and would have been just as notable had the incident not occurred. Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Support This article could be merged with ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) and added as a section to the ship article. AirplanePro 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we discussing this again?

It was already discussed at length here, and there was no consensus for a merge then:

For the record, I would oppose it.

I would certainly strongly oppose merging the ship article to here; WP:SHIPS holds all ships to be inherently notable, so ROKS Cheonan should have a ship article regardless of the ins and outs of her sinking, even if it’s just a stub.

And all the ship article needs is a summary of the sinking; if there really are 9 pages of stuff to be said about the incident, (background, what happened, political fallout) then it should be on a separate page.

We already cleared out a lot of detail about the incident from the Cheonan page to here; if it’s not desirable to have the ship article containing “pretty much the same information”, the remedy is to stop stuff being duplicated from here to there. (in my opinion). Xyl 54 (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Commonly held practice is that warships are notable, hence there is certainly no grounds for merging ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) as being non-notable. The alternative, merging this sinking article into the main ship article is possible, but unnecessary, especially now that the sinking appears to have much wider political consequences, and I don't think anyone is arguing that this event is not notable enough for its own article. Examples of this approach include Deepwater Horizon and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Exxon Valdez and Exxon Valdez oil spill, etc. Benea (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FULLY AGREE with you -- May need to merge, but not now. The inccident under this title is very serious and unpredictable. --Hyungjin Ahn (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Agreed, both articles are notable enough. No question realy.--SelfQ (talk) 13:51, 21 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 agree with EaswarH. It is too early to decide whether or not to merge.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

oppose AT any rate it is long enough to warrant a split and notable enough. (like the Polish presidents plane crash, which spun off to other articles)Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Much as the sinking of the Bismark is not a subsection of the Bismark's page, this should be separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkShark (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I can't believe this is still a matter of debate, can't we resolve this already? I think several months has been more than adequate to reach some sort of consensus. --Hourick (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Separation of Reactions section

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.

Seems like a fine idea to me.XavierGreen (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of battle box

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)

Independent Investigation

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)

I would imagine the North Koreans would not want to be involved. As well as this they did form an international investigation (Britain, Canada etc). Your point is noted but just because you (or anyone else for that matter) believe it not to be independent does not mean we should change an encyclopaedic article. This isn't the place for opinions, and the investigation has been said, stated, claimed (what have you) to be independent.-WingsGoesWiki (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wings, thanks for the response. Personally, "I would imagine" they were just not invited :-), and neither were other North Korea sympathizers like China. But like you said it's not a place for opinions. So, where's the FACTUAL evidence that the commission was independent? The evidence we have strogly implies that the commission was patronaged by South Korea... Look as an example at this CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/south.korea.sunken.ship/index.html?hpt=T2. I think they do a better job at keeping NPOV by using terms like "an official investigation", "international members of the investigative team", "the investigative committee", etc. (And yeah, personally I think NK did sink the ship, but they need to have their say on the matter too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.161.0 (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

´What you mean by China being sympathizer? it violates POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.250.9 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 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)

I agree that what is meant by independent (of whom?) is some-thing of a problem, but the article currently comes close to sounding like the Washington paper cited is a lone source. In fact, the report -- with photos, talking heads etc. etc. -- are all over the news (radio, television, newspapers) in Korea. The report is about as much a fact as any widely reported and photographed and filmed news item these days. Yes, we should give some source as a citation, but not start a sentence with "According to...," "In ..." or some similar phrase implying that we are only reporting that some news source reported.Kdammers (talk) 23:44, 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)

Independent perhaps but not impartial.... Doesn't wikipedia have a policy against automatically putting up the official line as the official story? Additionally, there is evidence that Sweden did not endorse the guilty verdict of the investigation.

http://www.nautilus.org/publications/essays/napsnet/policy-forums-online/security2009-2010/10033mcglynn

This is besides the evidence mounting against the 'so-called' international investigation itself (consisting exclusively mainly of NK haters: US, and SK ) which determined NK to have torpedoed the Cheonan. The Chinese are not buiying it, neither are the Russians.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/427801.html
: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680.pdf
--Be gottlieb (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented to have an article with an alternate view on the topic. Perhaps if you have enough verifiable references, you can start one up. But mind you, it will face the same scrutiny that any other article on here and has to pass muster. Good luck with that. --Hourick (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea, seems to me like a WP:POVFORK, which is generally frowned upon. I'll see if I can't fit in some of the the stuff into this article without resorting to a fork. C628 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea either, but to help prevent any future edit wars and winding up with an article too long as to be unreadable, perhaps we should let the kids have their own sandbox. 9/11 conspiracy theories and Moon landing conspiracy theories are examples (never mind that Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is STILL ignored in that article, but this is not the place for THAT discussion) that there are too many viewpoints on the same topic that they HAVE to be split. Allow them to do it, have a small summary on this page and a link to that one. The conspiracy theorists can edit in their tinfoil hats in bliss. --Hourick (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

take a look at the Korean language article (even with Google translation) you will see how much more serious and balanced it is than this English one. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a particular world-view. All significant and relevant information toward an nuanced understanding of an event should be presented. Scientists in America and Canada have both found significant problems with the official story. It is wrong to mock people for attempting to improve an article, especially one on an important international event which is very complex. Do bullies define the truth in Wikipedia? --Be gottlieb (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this article; I've added a paragraph about the Canadian investigation. Is there anything else you'd want added? C628 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks C626, those findings in the Hankyoreh are ok, I think there are stronger arguments in the American study http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680.pdf , and, even though this report http://www.nautilus.org/publications/essays/napsnet/policy-forums-online/security2009-2010/10033mcglynn is openly biased, it is well researched (with a lot of mainstream news sourcing) and does serve well to nuance the term "international investigation" which I think is the thing to do in this section.--Be gottlieb (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Combatants

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)

I have been watching your back and forth with Carroback, and noting that you had given your argument for your position. I was hoping to see Carroback's argument also, but have been disappointed. I believe that you are correct: the theory that it was North Korean action that sank the ship is well supported by evidence and widely accepted, and other conjectures are acknowledged and given fair consideration elsewhere in the article. Sterrettc (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

there are a couple of articles in the Hankyoreh today which are pertinent here. Including this one http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/428559.html which reports that the upcoming South Korean censure motion against North Korea in the UN will no longer directly blame North Korea for the sinking, rather referring to 'those responsible'. This is a significant backtrack in South Korea's position due to mounting evidence against their claims of North Korean culpability in the event.

Wikipedia was not alone, even the Canadian Embassy in Seoul came out with a statement framing this incident as a North Korean attack. (this has since been removed from their site, but thank Google, it is still here! :)) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lad816R-FkEJ:www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2010/175.aspx+Minister+Cannon+Issues+Statement+on+the+Situation+in+the+Korean+Peninsula&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de . I support Carrobacks action on this and and maintain, until more convincing evidence is available, the North Korean Navy should be removed from the infobox 'Combatants'...indeed it remains to be seen if there was any combat at all. --Be gottlieb (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously with both the emerging adjusted positions of the surrounding community and the known track record of one of the conflicting players of staging false flag operations, it is now inappropriate to put North Korea in the infobox as the aggressor. I propose that it be listed as "unknown" with a footnote explaining that N. Korea has been accused of the attack but that they have denied any involvement. This case also echoes the 2008 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing where the infobox originally stated that the Taliban was the cuprit for the terrorist attack, but this was later removed. __meco (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

infobox

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)

Conn Hallinan, who "oversaw the journalism program at the University of California at Santa Cruz for 23 years, and won the UCSC Alumni Association’s Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as UCSC’s Innovations in Teaching Award, and Excellence in Teaching Award" has published a small piece re-iterating the doubts raised by Profs. Lee & Suh: http://www.fpif.org/blog/torpedoing_conventional_thinking_on_the_cheonan The opinion that the JIG investigation findings are inadequate seems to be acquiring some more established proponents. Personally, I think that putting the PRK Navy there at all is presumptuous, but if it must remain there because so much political capital has been invested in that version of the story, then at least it should be (allegedly) there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be gottlieb (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Me, a veteran...*sigh*...anyway, yeah, I think you're right, at this point there's enough stuff on alternate theories to add the qualifier to the infobox (the Nature article made me take them a lot more seriously), although I changed it to "presumed," which I think is a somewhat less emotive word. C628 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is presumptuous ;), C628, but I guess I can live with it, for now. I changed the format a bit since I thought it would make more sense to have the party we know with certainly was involved should come first. Another link:
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/06/10/2010061001164.html Russians "unconvinced by Cheonan Evidence"--Be gottlieb (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted from the battlebox to the generic infobox. North Korea denies involvement and there appears to be significant doubt outside of North Korea as to whether they were involved or not. The NPOV way to present this is to show in the infobox that there is doubt. The battle box assumes that North Korea was involved. Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 23 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)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Submarine actions use battleboxs, it is well established precendent within wikipedia articles. The ideas presented by a handful of proffessors would fall under wikipedia fringe i believe.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus above is for the Infobox news event, which I concur with. No one has argued for Infobox military conflict lately. Rwendland (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous conversations all ended with consensus stating that a battlebox should be used. All of the other skirmishes on the northern limit line use battle boxes. Why should this be any different. The above commentators have only been arguing what to place in the infobox. Not the actual type of infobox to be used. Until concesus is reached the original type of infobox created on the page (the battlebox) should be maintained.XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that this incident being a skirmish has been resoundingly put into question. With my reference above to preceding discussion on this page, I cannot see that there exists any consensus for either retaining {{Infobox military conflict}} or, more significantly, naming North Korea as a belligerent party or any North Korean submarine being part in the incident. I am therefore reverting you back to {{Infobox news event}} noting also that I am the third editor to revert you on this issue. __meco (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By using a news box rather than a battlebox, signifigant summery details are left out such as force strength, commanding officer and the like. For example by glancing at the current infobox, there is no indication that a second South Korean corvette was deployed in the area as was two north korean submarines and a north korean surface vessel.XavierGreen (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not really an issue with either infobox. To me the important issue is not to present North Korea as a belligerent party with all the contention this assertion has caused. __meco (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a battle box with north korea listed as allegedly in the one belligerent side, since it must be indicated in anytime of box that they are the main suspect.XavierGreen (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. But with that level of uncertainty I would object to any flag icon being displayed. Also this qualifier (allegedly) should be present in all relevant sections of the military conflict infobox ("Belligerents"/"Strength"). __meco (talk) 07:31, 25 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)

OK, I'm trying to be open to both solutions. I guess I can't be counted for either position. __meco (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW (probably not much), I'd be in favor of just leaving it as it is now; I don't think there's anything wrong with the current news event infobox, and changing it to a battle box just makes it more problematic, what with the disputed belligerents. This way we can just say that North Korea is presumed or alleged or whatever to have been involved, and go into further detail in the body of the article, where the disputes can be explained more clearly. C628 (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good article

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)

I agree, the article as it stands today has a very good range of well-researched and well-sourced perspectives. It has taken a lot of care and attention, but I think the standards we have maintained up to now seem to be working. However, as you mentioned, the matter is still developing, so please consider pitching in. --Be gottlieb (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

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

with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute)

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 report of an investigation carried out by a team of international experts[3] was released on May 20, 2010, concluding that the warship had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo,[4][5] fired by a midget submarine,[6] although the claims of the report have been disputed by the People's Republic of China.[7]

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've no problem adding some stuff that displays multiple viewpoints; I'm happy to do so. But this is going too far. Adding more stuff that supports the North Korean or conspiracy POV, is going to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. The reason there's more that that you disagree with is because that's what has been most widely reported, and what is generally accepted. Look at the section above for my thoughts on this sort of thing in general. In response to your specific claims: "asserts numerous increasingly contentious assertions as facts"—yes, it does, since said assertions are still the accepted cause of the incident by the majority of the world. Despite what you may feel, opposing theories are still relatively minor, and don't deserve too much space in the article. Second, "The claims have been disputed by journalists, scientists and other experts from South Korea and around the world." True. I personally, at your request added a paragraph on one such investigation. Lastly, "Another example, the use of a 'Battle Box' instead of a more neutral 'Infobox' on the right side." Well, first off, a battle box is a type of infobox...second off, there's been discussion on this above; consensus seems to be that the battle box is appropriate, because this was a military action (warship sunk, generally believed to be from hostile intentions) during a war (two Koreas are still at war, only happen to be on an awful long cease-fire). C628 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful response and for your efforts in trying to balance out this article. I am confident that this issue will be revealed to be something quite different from how it has been, as you say, "widely reported" in the "majority of the world". But I will step back for a bit and let other members of the community discuss whether the articles concerned require reformulation in order to be more neutral. I think using the word 'facts' to describe the findings of the much-discredited JIG report is a bit of a stretch, reproducing them here uncritically, is in my opinion not NPOV. But now, apparently, the SK government is going proactive inviting "20 twitter users, 10 defense bloggers and 30 college reporters "to take a trip to Pyeongtaek naval port south of Seoul where the salvaged parts of Cheonan are being kept."" http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=386108&rel_no=1 in an effort to diffuse scepticism of the findings. Let's see if it works. Just for my information, if a military vessel crashes during exercises during wartime, is it still considered to have engaged in "a battle"? --Be gottlieb (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that since the report is still accepted by the majority of the world as fact, it's got somewhat higher precedence than other theories, which have less supporters. As for the infobox, I think it still goes back to the fact that most nations consider the findings of the official report true, and since it says North Korea sank the vessel, that would seem to be a battle. Besides, I'm honestly not sure what you'd use if it wasn't a battle infobox...not exactly a civilian attack, and I'm not sure what else there is...anyways, yeah, I suppose the best thing to do now is wait and see if someone else comments on it, because neither of us are looking at it with particularly clear vision by now. C628 (talk) 23:26, 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)

New results from the investigations of professors Lee and Suh from U. of Virginia and Johns Hopkins U. were announced today http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100709/world/as_japan_skorea_ship_sinking

"South Korea should reopen an investigation, and the parliament should open an investigation into the JIG on suspicion of fabricated data," Suh told Nature. "They failed in their task of proving that this was done by North Korea, and so it is quite likely that they fabricated data." http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100708/full/news.2010.343.html

Prof. Lee published a more scientific critique of the official (JIG) findings with Panseok Yang of the U. of Manitoba http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0680

Another article, from Voice of America (VOA) http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Professors-Raise-Doubts-About-Report-on-South-Korean-Ship-Sinking--98098809.html for those who like to complain that not enough 'authoritative sources' cast aspersions on the official story. Similar content to the above.

Russian findings (July 9th) undermine official story credibility as well.

"A leading Russian expert on Korea suggested that the ship had been probably hit by friendly fire. “I think it was a tragic accident during war games that cynical politicians are trying to exploit to maximum advantage,” said Dr. Konstantin Asmolov of the Korea Centre at the Institute of the Far East." http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article450117.ece --Be gottlieb (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"He said-she said" is not the way Wikipedia operates - we have a undue weight policy which means that we put greater weight on what the majority says, as opposed to minority viewpoints. In this case, we have an explanation that has been very widely reported and widely accepted, versus a series of explanations offered by individuals that have received relatively little attention and little or no wider acceptance. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, this incident is still "He said-she said". Around half of the South Korean public doesn't trust the official report. I'm still offended by the Wikipedians who deleted my findings just because they are all in Korean. Wikipedia is not about censorship for the Soviet Union, I mean the American government. --Komitsuki (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I support Wikipedia's undue weight policy. However, I do wish to point out that part of any explanation is how we know what we're saying is true. The findings of the "international team of experts" have not been reproduced (in fact there are contradictory findings) and they have not gone through peer review. That's a huge deal because all scientific knowledge goes through this procedure. We're basically going on the word of the "international team of experts" here just because we think they're experts. We gotta point out that logical fallacy. Wallers (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosion?

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)

AFAICS Shin argues there is evidence Cheonan grounded at 19:15, freed itself, then there was a subsequent event minutes later which was the direct cause of the sinking. Which would explain the huge confusion over the time of the sinking in initial reports. I do think the JIG report, or at least the part released to the public, is lightweight. For example in assessing the Kursk sub sinking it was possible to analyse some of the sailors' bodies to determine quite precisely the acceleration the sailors had been subject to from the explosion (better than analysing the sub remains apparently) - if that was done in this case we would probably know more about any explosion.

The article should say something about the Russian investigation, which is currently completely omitted in the article. Myself (as OR), I'm pretty convinced there was an explosion underneath, but dubious it was a North Korean torpedo because a) a shallow-water bubble jet torpedo would be a huge technology advance[*] by NK (which surely they must have previously tested in an observable way); b) the position of the attack to the west of the island away from the NLL and in very shallow waters; c) took place while the US/SK was running a large anti-submarine excercise "75 miles" away when modern low-frequency active sonar can detect submarines hundreds of miles away. Nevertheless the torpedo parts found are hard to explain.

[*] eg Note this item[4] reports that the advanced US Mark 48 CBASS (Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System) torpedo had "sonar enhancements [to] make it effective in shallow water" which were only tested as recently as 2008. It does seem amazing for NK to use an old torpedo design in this way in 2010. Rwendland (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the "Sinking of Cheonan" section, but I definitely don't want to do more than that; the "Cause of sinking" section is for all the various theories, and since the official report is still the most widely accepted and reported one, it should have more weight in the summary of the sinking. Rwendland, if you have a source for the Russian stuff, go ahead and and it as another subsection of the "Cuase of sinking" part. C628 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems the Russians have finally produced their report with a scenario which completely contradicts the JIG report.

The Russian experts’ conclusions are the following.

1. It is confirmed that the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan is due to an explosion outside the ship and in the water.

2. Before the sinking, the Cheonan ship touched the ocean floor on the right, a fishing net was entangled in the right propeller and the right line of the axle, which damaged the propeller wings.Due to the entanglement of the fishing net with the right propeller and axle line, the Cheonan ship must have experienced restrictions in its speed and maneuvers.The Cheonan ship was traveling in a shallow area close to the coast and was entangled with the fishing net, and while it was moving to deeper water, the bottom of the ship might have touched an antenna of an ocean mine, which ignited the explosion of the mine. Another possibility is that the ship was traveling with its malfunctioning navigation system and with a restricted maneuvering capability, it might have been exploded by a ROK’s torpedo.

3. The torpedo part that ROK presented seems to be an electronic torpedo with a radius of 533mm. However, we do not conclude that this particular torpedo was launched to and impacted on the Cheonan ship.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432230.html

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432233.html --Be gottlieb (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea Times has story doubting the Hankyoreh story "Russian Embassy in Seoul said that it was not in a position to verify the report, adding it has not been informed of the Russian team’s assessment report".[5] OTOH Hankyoreh is producing more articles,[6] and an Editorial backing it up.[7] I'm inclined to wait 24 hours to see what more emerges. Rwendland (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sinking of the Cheonan section

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)

just noticed that at the beginning of the 'Cause of Sinking' Section it is stated that "South Korean officials initially downplayed suggestions that North Korea was responsible for the sinking.[38" ... so... which was it?

"Initial reports suggested that the ship was hit by a North Korean torpedo, "
 

(from the Sinking of Cheonan Section), or

"South Korean officials initially downplayed suggestions that North Korea was responsible for the sinking."
 

(from the Cause of Sinking section)?--Be gottlieb (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Both, since what South Korea says and what the rest of the world, particularly the media, says are completely different things. South Korean officials obviously don't want to publicly blame North Korea right after the incident, since they have no proof, and given the North Korean government's tendency to act unpredictably, the last thing South Korea wants is to provoke the North into actually launching a full-scale attack. The media, and to a lesser extant other countries, has no such bias, and they of course freely speculated about North Korean involvement. I personally don't have a problem with keeping them both in, I don't think they're contradictory, just different reactions from different people. C628 (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

just found this clip from Arirang TV (ROK's equivalent to BBC World service or VOA) from about a week after the sinking, where it is reported that the defence ministry states no North Korean submarines were detected in the area, also, the story of the ROKS Seokcho firing on a flock of birds.... FYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgIlFXG4bo8&--Be gottlieb (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

a piece in the NYT yesterday prompted me to have a go at reworking this section a bit. I hope you all find it is improved and more in keeping with the facts and uncertainties in so far as they are commonly acknowledged at present.--Be gottlieb (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)