Talk:Operation Dawn of Gulf of Aden

Concerning the destroyer's description

"The Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyer Choi Young had in addition to the 300 crew[8] and 30 commandos[1] on board, two quad Harpoon missile launchers,[9][10] a five inch naval gun,[11] a 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS,[9] a 64 cell VLS,[10] a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher[10] and four chaff launchers." I don't see why a detailed description of the armament of the already linked ship does any good. You don't need anti-ship-missiles (harpoon), anti-air/anti-rocket defensive systems (CIWS, VLS, RAM) or a naval gun in said scenario. Thankfully, none of these systems had to be used. Imagine the US Navy doing the same, you wouldn't talk about nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier, either. --91.32.63.75 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is typical for a force assesment to be included in the background section of naval battles. The US navy has used naval guns of various calibers against pirates in the past. And it would be appropriate to mention nuclear weapons carried on an aircraft carrier during an engagement (imagine the possible effects if the carrier exploded due to enemy action), but there have been no carrier engagements since the dawn of nuclear weapons that example is moot anyway.XavierGreen (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

no publication reporting about this event puts all the weapons of the Choi Young into the text of the report, because it is massively disrupting the flow of the text! also the armament in this question is totally irrelevant and NOT a single other article about fights with pirates (listed in the "OEF-Horn of Africa" box to the right) lists any weapons of any of the ships involved! therefore I will remove this way to detailed, irrelevant information now again and insist we do not put in all this tangential information a reader does not care and also not know anything about. noclador (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Flag?

I'm removing the flag used for Somali Pirates, since there's really no link between them and that flag. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Skull and Crossbones is a recognised flag to identify pirates. My addition of the Somali flag was reverted, and on reflection I think that the Skull and Crossbones is the better flag to use. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If the pirates don't use a flag, there's no need to include one on this page. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

New pirate directive

Should the new directive the pirates have been given to seek revenge on South Korean seamen and ships be mentioned in the "Aftermath" section of the article? Use this Reuters article for reference: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE70M01O20110123 67.253.145.37 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and do it, so long as you cite it. It is already added on a couple other pages, but it would do well here too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it might do well to be incorportate it into the aftermath section.XavierGreen (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reminding some editors when using "South Korea" or "South Korean"

Most people do not realize that calling Republic of Korea as South Korea is actually a great insult to people of the Republic of Korea. Only DPRK (North Korea) officially uses the term South Joseon, which also mean South Korea, and Republic of Korea does not recognize DPRK as a nation but "bandits" occupying the north of the peninsula that should be ruled by Korean government. In addition, official name of South Korea is Republic of Korea. Furthermore, there is no ethnic group designated as South Korean (남한인). Koreans (ROK) distinguish themselves as Koreans (한국인) and people of the DPRK as people of the North Korea (북한사람) not North Korean (북한인). Kadrun (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but there is a nationality called South Korean and a nationality called North Korean, there for it is nessesary in articles involving the militaries of either to distinguish between the two. It is common in the english language to refer to the Republic of Korea as South Korea. But you are correct in that the offical name of a country should be used in the info box, which in this case would be Republic of Korea. XavierGreen (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My Korean friends say "South Korea" all the time. "Great insult"? -- I don´t think so. It is a political term, not an ethnic term, and I don't think anywhere in this article makes it seem like an ethnic term. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add / try and make XavierGreen's point clearer: Wikipedia must take a world-view. Although Koreans themselves may take offense to being called North or South Korean, the world knows two Korea's (two countries with the name Korea). Hence, when referring to the countries, North and South Korea / North and South Korean would be preferable to just Korean. However, when referring to the people or culture (from an anthropological perspective), Korean is still the most common term and should be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, North Korea and South Korea are the common names of the two countries, as opposed to their official names Democratic Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Need to properly cite additions from primary source

I reverted a good faith addition to the article taken directly from what appear to be the logs of the commando raids on the pirates. This will need to be properly cited from reliable, ideally secondary, sources. KimChee (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I copied the material over here for reference: (translation)

• 피랍 나흘째인 지난 18일.
• 삼호 주얼리호에 있던 해적 4명이소형 보트를 타고 인근의 몽골 화물선 납치에 나섭니다.
• 청해부대는 곧바로 링스헬기를 띄워공격에 나섰고, 보트에 타고 있던 해적 일부는 죽고,일부는 바다에 뛰어들었습니다.
• 이를 지켜본 삼호 주얼리호의 해적들은백기를 들고 투항의사를 밝혔습니다.
• 청해부대는 배를 접수하기 위해 고속단정 2척을 주얼리호로 접근시켰습니다.
• 그런데 바로 이 순간. 해적들이 갑자기 총을 쏘아대는 바람에 UDT 대장을 비롯한 3명이 부상을 했습니다.
• 항복을 가장한 기만전술에 결정적 손실을 입을 뻔했던 상황.
• 그러나 당시 보트와 함께 해적들의 화기를 빼앗은 건 이후 구출작전 성공의 밑거름이 됐습니다.
• 당시 노획한 화기는 AK-47 소총 3정과 실탄 90여 발.갖고 있던 소총이 6정에 불과했던 해적들은 화력의 절반이 무력화됐고 특히 탄환이 부족해 소총 한 정당 탄창 한 개밖에 쓰지 못한 것으로 드러났습니다.
• 1차 작전 때 획득한 노획물과 무엇보다 속임수에 당했다는 뼈아픈 경각심이 아덴만 여명 작전의 완벽한 성공으로 이어졌습니다.
• 몽골 화물선 등장, 1차 양면 작전=18일 오후 2시20분. 삼호주얼리호에서 11㎞ 떨어진 곳에서 몽골 화물선(6만t급)이 지나가자 해적들이 움직이기 시작했다. 삼호주얼리호에서 해적 4명이 내려와 고속보트로 몽골 화물선에 접근했다. 합참 관계자는 “추가로 배를 납치하고, 해적 일부는 그 배로 육지로 돌아가려 했던 듯하다”고 말했다. 해적 세력이 분산되는 절호의 타이밍이었다. 최영함의 양면 작전이 시작됐다. 몽골 화물선의 해적들 위로 링스 헬기를 띄우면서 동시에 특수전 대원들이 고속단정을 타고 삼호주얼리호로 향했다. 링스헬기에서 기관총으로 위협 사격을 가했다. 해적들은 사살되거나 바다로 추락한 듯 보였다. 해적들이 삼호주얼리호로 돌진하는 우리 고속정에 대해 총격을 가하기 시작했다. 고속정에 타고 있던 특수전 대원 3명이 부상했다. 최영함이 해적들이 타고 있던 고속 보트를 인양했다. AK-47 소총 3자루, 어부들이 쓰는 칼 서너 자루, 탄창(30발 장전용), 사다리 3개를 확보했다. 해적 4명은 헤엄쳐 삼호주얼리호로 복귀한 것으로 드러났다.

Jan 18 incident

I'm very tempted to entirely revert this. I have no understanding of the language the reference is in, I don't even recognize the language (Google says its Korean), but a Google translate version doesn't seem to include all the information that was added, and I'd rather have the prior version, where I can verify everything, then the current one (which besides having suspect referencings needs a major copyedit). Ideally, a native Korean speaker could determine whether the information is verifiable in the source, but other suggestions are welcome. Thoughts? C628 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are in Korean and pertain to the subject, but this needs a lot of work. The additions were clearly derived from the commando report and I think the citations may have been added in response to my previous concerns. KimChee (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...so the references do support the claims? That makes me happier. It certainly does need work, at the very least it should get trimmed for undue weight, as it's a lot longer than the bit on the boarding, which is the more important stuff. (BTW, I left a note about this at the talk page of the [erson who added it) C628 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment: We can see the confiscated materials on the site http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=fps&no=1733232. We see the pirates motor boat has no sign of being shot. And we can see the rusty AK rifles. Then where the pirates gone? They all jumped off the boat? Then why did they leave the AK rifles on the boat to be confiscated? In order NOT to drop the AK rifles in the middle of the sea, did they tie the rifles on the boat?? Anyway I feel sorry for the korean army for the fact that they did not rescue the jumped pirates. And the ammunition magizine above site says that the privates did not shoot all the bullets (We can see the cartriges are not empty). I imagine that the all the jumped pirates were shot dead by the Lynx machine gun in the middle of the sea, though no news said it. Some news said that the jumped privates swimmed to the Samho Jewelry, some news said they were missing, some said that they are dead. (Gauge00 (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

The pirated MV Hoang Son Sun was the Mongolian vessel nearby??

MV Hoang Son Sun is the Mongolian vessel nearby??

http://www.seanews.com.tr/article/PIRACY/49563/MV-HOANg-SON-SUN-Somali-Pirates/

The Hoang Son Sun is believed to have been pirated approximately 520 nautical miles South East of the port of Muscat, Oman. The 22,835-tonne Bulk carrier, which is Mongolian flagged and Vietnamese owned, has a crew of 24 Vietnamese nationals.

http://www.seanews.com.tr/article/PIRACY/49738/South-Korea-Piracy-Navy-Samho-Jewelry/

A South Korean naval rescue team killed eight Somali pirates and rescued all 21 seamen

On January 15, 2011, Samho Jewelry was attacked 350 nautical miles (600 km; 400 mi) southeast of Muscat

At Monday (Jan 17), Samho Jewelry was located 450 to 500 kilometers (280 to 311 miles) south of where it was originally seized.

We know that Samho Jewelry and a mongolian ship are located at a same position the very day Janurary 18 (Tuseday).

At Thursday (January 20) MV Hoang Son Sun was pirated 520 nautical miles South East of of Muscat

Therefore if the mongolian ship is east bound after it met sahmho Jewelry, then it could be the very vessel MV Hoang Son Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be. But it also might not be, and unless there's a way to prove that the two ships are the same, it's only speculation and doesn't belong. C628 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)