Talk:Socotra Rock

NPOV

At the moment very little information is provided on the conflicting territorial claims on Socotra Rock. The positions of both the PRC and ROK should be provided to maintain balance. -Loren 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a mischaracterization to call this a 'territorial dispute', since China has explicitly denied claiming the rock (and indeed, submerged rocks are generally considered off-limits to territorial claims). The dispute seems to be more centrered on whether or not the rock lies within South Korea's EEZ rather than on whose actual territory it belongs to. [1] --Zonath^Yak 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... how do you propose characterizing this issue then? It's a stretch to even call this an island. -Loren 03:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Korea's "Chosun Ilbo", China is now claiming Ieodo Island (Socotra Rock) belongs to their country, depite the island being in the Korean EEZ. [2] -dandan xD 2:47 p.m. 15 Sep 2006 (AEST)

There's nothing in the Chosun that mentions China making a claim on the rock -- just that they dispute the claim of South Korea (whatever claim that is). This seems to be more a dispute over the EEZ than any actual territory. --Zonath^Yak 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Zonath... but it's confusing because the Chinese F.M. Spokesman has admitted that the two countries never had a territorial dispute over the island. So why bring it up now? And is "Socotra Rock" the more popular name used by international maps? -dandan xD 2:56 p.m. 15 Sep 2006 (AEST)

Well technically, if the rock is within China's EEZ (or on China's portion of the continental shelf), then technically South Korea wouldn't be within its rights to build a research station on the rock, I believe. And from what I've read, China's been protesting the placement of the station since construction started, and it's South Korea that's brought up the issue by asking China to recognize its sovereignty over the area. As for the name... no idea. It's a neigh-unknown submarine feature. I doubt any name is commonly used for it. --Zonath^Yak 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Ieodo is within Chinese EEZ? Ieodo is in the Korean contintental shelf and also is nearest to the Korean island, Marado. (Ieodo is 149km from Marado, 275km from the nearest Japanese island Tori-shima and 247km from the nearest Chinese island) And for land (or rocks in this case) to be in your EEZ, it has to be within 200 nautical miles from you territory doesnt it? So it wouldn't be included in the Chinese EEZ and this wikipedia article also states it.[3][4] -dandan xD 3:21 p.m. 15 Sep 2006 (AEST)

Technically, the problem comes up because the 200nm limit on the EEZ of each country overlaps, and there hasn't been a definitive agreement between the two countries over what the boundaries of their respective EEZs should be. If China is right, then South Korea is violating Article 60 of the Law of the Sea by having the station at Ieodo, although China's claims are dubious at best, since typically, countries split the difference where their EEZs would overlap. And 247km is far shorter than 200nm. --Zonath^Yak 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason China has protested the Korean claim of the rocks is that, if the Koreans claim it's an island and settle it, it would extend their EEZ out even more and thereby causing a bigger overlap of EEZ between the two countries and if the EEZ is split, China will get a smaller portion than if it's declared a rock rather than an island.

Well, you can't really claim or settle an underwater feature, and artificial constructs explicitly don't count when figuring a country's EEZ. So really, whether this dot on the map falls under the South Korean sphere of influence or the Chinese one, it has no real potential to affect the respective sizes of those spheres. --Zonath^Yak 17:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If China never claimed it (despite what the UN says you can claim), shouldn't this article be moved? The Dokdo article uses "Dokdo" as a title because of South Korea's control over it so shouldn't this article be moved as well in consistency?

Also, Zonath, it does affect the EEZ of China if the island falls under full control of South Korea. China would not like it if Korea extends their EEZ. Good friend100 15:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Friend - Read the discussion before making comments, please. Underwater features (like this 'island' which lies more than 5 meters underwater) do not affect a country's EEZ one way or the other. Claiming this underwater feature as 'belonging' to one country or another before the EEZ boundary dispute is settled is very much jumping the gun, since whether or not South Korea has any right to build their research station on the rock depends solely on which side of the boundary this rock eventually falls. And as long as the boundary remains unsettled, I think the current title is adequate, since this is an underwater feature that's not being claimed as territory by anyone. --Zonath^Yak 05:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

In this ROK government website, they make clear that they are NOT claiming an EEZ from Ieodo: http://ieodo.nori.go.kr/eng/intro2_3.asp (fifth paragraph). Going by the proximity rule, Ieodo is clearly in South Korea's EEZ, but China's stake comes from inclusion of Ieodo as part of its continental shelf. Does continental shelf trump the distance rule? Does continental shelf create an EEZ of any kind? If the answer to these questions is "no" then South Korea looks like it clearly has the upper hand in this dispute and I wonder to what lengths balance must be provided to make the dueling claims look equal. Kushibo (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is imbalanced... especially the comment about the Marado's stele "southermost xxx of South Korea". That's so WP:OR & groundless. South Korean research facilities in Antarctica should be considered too - that is, the stele was put in place even at the existence of S. Korean Antarctican research facilities --> that argument is complete crap from CPOV. Wikimachine 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Socotra rock was "claimed" in a way by the placing of a maritime beacon in 1987, which the PRC hasn't objected to until 2012. So for 15 years south korea was administering a naval beacon without china's objection. the PRC has been claiming a number of sub-sea formations as have a number of other countries. We all know that the PRC has been claiming territories left right and centre for glorious leader; Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet. The Air Defence Zone expansion is just another step.

References

Parangdo

This article lists "Parangdo" among the alternative names for Ieodo, but in the article on Parangdo, (which appears to have been translated from the Japanese wikipedia article 波浪島) Parangdo is claimed to be "an imaginary island which South Korea requested to include in The abandoned territory of Japan". Of course, the name could have been used for more than one island, or one of the claims could be false, but we should really find out which. Rōnin 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, already fixed by someone else. Rōnin 14:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

where is the source ? or is it Known by Korean ?--Forestfarmer 09:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question... Now that you mention it, there's no source claiming that Socotra Rock has been called "Parangdo" listed on the page. Rōnin 09:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha! The claim originates from the Korean wikipedia article: 이어도. That's certainly a problem. The Japanese wikipedia claims Parangdo never existed, and the Korean one claims it's an alternative name for Ieodo. Using the Korean Wikipedia article as a source and then refusing the Japanese one seems to be a breach of neutrality. Perhaps we should go back to having a separate Parangdo article, and instead include the Korean claim in that article. Rōnin 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

OK.I reverted Parangdo.and added about Socotra Rock.Korean ambassador (You Chan Yang) said that Parangdo is in the Sea of Japan near Ulleungdo generally.I think that the position of the island is completely different.--Forestfarmer 12:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have converted Parangdo to a disambiguation page, reflecting the three uses which turn up frequently. I have again removed most of the pre-existing content, which is both inflammatory ("imaginary"?) and unverified. I would be happy to see that content restored (perhaps at another location) if it can be brought into line with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutrality. -- Visviva 13:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim certainly does not originate from the Korean Wikipedia; in fact it would be difficult to find a Korean-language page about Ieodo that does not mention "Parangdo" as an alternate name. I have added one reference that came readily to hand. -- Visviva 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is called "double standard" in usual.--Forestfarmer 15:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

POV forking

Someone's been moving the article back to Suyan Rock (the Chinese name) and changed this page into a redirect. I've reverted it, and hope it will remain here. Rōnin 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Suyan Rock has been protected along with Socotra Rock, so we now have two articles with roughly the same content, except that Suyan Rock has a different title and a slight Chinese bias. A request to make Suyan Rock a redirect has been filed. Rōnin 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on, if you check the page history it should be back to a redirect. Yet the article doesn't seem to have updated. -Loren 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; it seems like there might be some caching problem going on... At any rate, a shift-reload seemed to reveal a redirect rather than a full article. Rōnin 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Socotra Rock should be a redirect to Suyan Rock, as it is in first version, how many people use suyan rcok while how many use socotra?

why should keep suyan as a redirect, at first socotra is a redirect. and I hope it keeps in suyan rock, and this socotra article is full of korean bias. I request it to convert back into a redirect.-yeahsoo 00:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how the article as it currently stands is biased? -Loren 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well,the EZZ should based on the natural division of the continental shelf,by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, while this article switch the focus on the distance, I agree the Korean island is more close, but that does not mean anything, Can we say Guan belongs to Japan since Guan is more close to Japan? like the new picture, only show the distance, gives people a illusion that Korean should claim it, but actually these resources are all from Korea. I request to unprotect it and allow me add pics of the continental shelf division.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.137.232.85 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Again, Guam is a separate matter, since being an actual island that juts above the water and has a native population, it can sustain a territorial claim independant of the United States's EEZ. This rock, being completely submerged at all times, doesn't even come close. Either it is in South Korea's EEZ, or it's in China's. But anyhow, the page is only protected from moves, not all edits. If you want to add your map and your citations, then go ahead. --Zonath^Yak 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text and commentary

Malado is southmost end for Korea (126E,33N), and there is stele carved" the southmost of Korea" (image removed), it is also a slogan for local travel attraction. This claimed by China a proof that Suyan Rock does not belong to Korea.

This paragraph is unacceptible because: 1. It contains unverified assertions (travel companies advertise Marado as the southermost island of Korea. China claims X) (WP:V) 2. It contains conclusory statements not supported by facts. (Proof that Suyan Rock...) (WP:NOR) --Zonath^Yak 04:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is acceptable because this stone is there even before South Korea become a independent country after korean war.and there is no travel agents by that time, and the conclusion is clear, sine this Malado is southmost, then Socotra is not Korean. maybe you can rule here but there is ten thousands records in google prove that Malado is south most, it is not claimed by China, chech japan wiki, malado also showed southmost of Korea. please do not pretent it is not true by ignore the thing you do not like, it is not wiki spirit. To admin, someone removed Malado article, any reason? -Yeahsoo

This is all irrelevant, since even if Marado is the southernmost territory of South Korea, that does not mean that South Korea does not have rights to Socotra Rock, since it is an underwater feature, not territory in any sense of the word. Korea's 'claim' on the rock stems from its assertion of its EEZ, not because it 'claims' this rock as 'territory'. Your information is wholly irrelevant to this particular article, even if it were true. --Zonath^Yak 05:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were true? It is true, even you deny, but most Korean people admit that. Anyway, why not let the image be there, let's change the caption with no bias, -Yeahsoo

You mean the Marado article? It's still there, as far as I can see. And I think you're missing the point here. It's irrelevant whether or not Marado is the southernmost Korean territory, the southernmost Korean island, or the southernmost Korean land, since Socotra Rock fits into none of those categories. South Korean assertions of jurisdiction over the rock stem from the Law of the Sea and other international conventions, not a territorial claim. So, there's simply no point to having this paragraph here, since none of it actually has anything to do with Socotra Rock. --Zonath^Yak 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is very important to Socotra Rock issue, since Marado is the base point for 12 miles marginal sea. 

Socotra is not even a proof to claim EEZ. That is what I think and maybe yours as well, but not Korean thought. Korean even call Suyan(Socotra) an "Island". So it is Korea want to claim it as a territory. Although the government deny they claim Socotra as an island. But if you live in Korea, you would see on TV, on newspapers, all claim "Ieodo" as their new land, ok? Someone even think Ieodo a new "Southmost of Korea". This is simply Korean tactics,let the world accepts it's belonging to Korea first, then claim it as an island. Hence, to keep the picture is absolutely neccessary. It prevent Korea to claim it as an island, and Marado is the base point Korean to caculate the distance to Socotra. -Yeahsoo

• Please keep your speculation and beliefs (i.e "this serves against Koraen's claims") in the discussion page, not the articles. Thank you. Deiaemeth 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've also removed the "Shan Hai Jing" claim, as the book is based on mythology and is a Mythological classic. The cited chapter talks about Kingdoms of midgets and giants. Deiaemeth 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I put Marado back sine I said it "MIGHT" be against, it is a dispute so you have to let compitors views to be listed not only Korean's.
• I put "Shan Hai Jing" back, as it does have mythology but it also has logs on navigation, it sais clearly "on EAST SEA" if you do not understand the book, do not put bias
• what I said in discussion is no bias but fact, Meanwhile, say, in Chosun Korean,I saw those real Korean bias all the day, but in English version and Chinese version those bias is hidden. If you think Korean is ok with Socotra is not island, then you will not care Marado is southmost in Korea.

--- -Yeahsoo09:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try and understand three things:

1. There is no territorial claim being made on Socotra Rock by either China or South Korea, nor can any such claim be made.

2. The dispute centers on whether or not South Korea has the right to build its observation station on this rock, which depends on whether or not this rock lies within South Korea's EEZ. The rock itself, being under water has no potential to affect or move the EEZ one way or the other. There is no other territorial claim -- the true dispute is over where China's EEZ ends, and South Korea's begins.

3. Although Marado might have some small effect on the location of South Korea's EEZ, the presence of the marker on the island doesn't do anything to shed light on the issue, since nobody claims this underwater feature as their 'territory'. Additionally, even though you say it 'might' be against South Korea's position, you don't back that assertion up with any source, so it's wholly speculative, and in violation of WP:NOR, as well as being entirely irrelevant to the content of this article, so I am removing it.

-Zonath^Yak 15:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• the ancient book list clearly "Su rock in East sea" there is no comment, so we should list here.

The book is a mythological classic.

• Marado have affects on this issue no matter the affect is big or small, I remove the "might", so only fact will rest there.
• if Wiki can not accept fact to be list, then what is WIKI spirit? I hope the dispute on these 2 changes will end.-Yeahsoo10:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Contratry to perception, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information must be verifiable and not be of your own making, in other words, No original research. The implications of these policies on your arguments is the following:

• You must provide a source for the "ancient book" referring to Suyan Rock as well as whether that reference does indeed refer to Socotra Rock.
• The status of Marado is unrelated to the issue of EEZs since South Korea is not claiming Socotra Rock as territory (and couldn't, under international law). If this argument was made by a PRC official, then a citation should be included. Otherwise it falls under Wikipedia's policy of No original research and should be removed. -Loren 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• First, it is not original and it is verifiable, I listed source from biggest site in China and the most serious Chinese ancient literary archaeology site.
• second, I have explained in previous discussion why they are related. and the info of "Marado is southmost of Korea" is from .gov website, [5]

and official korean website [6],so do you still want to say it is original? I do not understand, you see that photo, but you still want to say it is orginal, you mean I made the photo? If you talk about the relationship between Socotra and Marado is orginal,check this, if you seach socotra rock issue in google in Chinese language, all most every record will related with Marado, so it is very clear they are related. maybe you think they are unrelated, but you can not make others think same way.

• What's more, in Chinese version report Qinggang said China and Korea have no dispute on territory[7], while in Korean version they said "the two countries never had a territorial dispute over the island"[8], please note Korean refer the reef as an island. why Korean want to play literary tricks? why they insisi on call it an island? [9], the Ocean Research Station site even said "it was South Korean territory" [10] ,Everything has it purpose.----Yeahsoo14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia: No Original Research please. Deiaemeth 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• • You should read Wikipedia: No Original Research PLEASE, I read it very carefully and I follow the rule. PLEASE list anything you think exluded by the term.

and all items in history need a citation, don't they? Otherwise, it falls under Wikipedia's policy of No original research and should be removed.

• • So called "1952 or 1970" Korean did this or that has no evidence, meanwhile on korean wiki, it said "To 1984 after Cheju university searches this place, the entity was confirmed."[11] and here is the Google translate[12], so before 1984, Korea is not aware or not sure about the rock. Ha! now the bubble blows. Admin, does Korean Wiki stand for a reliable source for English Wiki? if so, we should add this to the history.----Yeahsoo17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe foreign-language wikis are acceptible as sources in and of themselves. After all, if they were, it would lead to a lot of instances of recursion (where one article is cited as authority for another which cites the initial article as its authority). However, there is certainly nothing to say that you can't use the same sources as the foreign-language Wiki and then include them as citations in the English-language article. Also, if something is included in the article that you feel has no evidence, feel free to remove it or to add the {{fact}} tag after it. --Zonath^Yak 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree the Korean Wiki should not be a source for English, but the Naver ref someone quoted here also approved Korea comfirmed the rock in 1984. But, I want to say the Korean file to prove 1900 British ship's discover is not convincing, no one has ever offered any british records.----Yeahsoo20:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... I couldn't find a whole lot online about when the rock was discovered, but I did manage to find a mention "Socotra Rock" (with a mention of Marado in the same entry) in the logs of the USS Icefish from 25 December 1944[13]. I also found information on the ship Socotra, which belonged to the P&O Line. P&O did operate ships in the region, and the Socotra is listed as having been built in 1897, and wrecked in 1915, so the limited circumstantial evidence would certainly seem to support the possibility that the discovery of the rock by the Socotra could have taken place in 1900.[14] So absent some other kind of evidence that would tend to contradict or disprove the Naver Encyclopedia article, it seems like it should be treated as a credible source. --Zonath^Yak 05:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now the article seems more balanced.. it needs mroe work though. Deiaemeth 07:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EEZ

Does Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China[[15]]? if it is really,I would reflect it in a picture.--Forestfarmer 13:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be, although it's hard to tell from the pictures in the article. Maybe it would be easier to find something defining the coordinates of the boundaries of the PMZ? Also, even if the rock doesn't lie within the PMZ, the article does contain a pretty good analysis of why there's an EEZ dispute in the first place. --Zonath^Yak 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I will provide a continental shelf map later today, so let's see how those rock sits. In order not to provoke someone, I will not overwrite the top one. plus I will add history about "Socotra Rock is not confirmed untill Cheju Univ's research in 1984." you can find this on vaver.com same ref already listed in the page[16]? meanwhile,1963-5-1 China's first self-made 10k ton ship "yue jing" sunk at Suyan Rock, although the map showes there is the rock close by, but fail to get the accurate ship location. They announced "attacked by topedo", it almost caused war. Japan's “Pan-Asia radio” released the news on the next day. After carefuly research lead by prime minister Zhou, China found out the ship is hit by the Suyan rock. This proves no later than 1963, China already mapped Suyan Rock.[17]Anyone has different opinion, you may speak in advance. --yeahsoo 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. As I understand it, the dispute is about the EEZ -- in particular, one country's right to erect research facilities in an area where its EEZ overlaps another. The dispute is not about territorial rights, because submerged rocks are not subject to territorial claims. So ... how is priority of discovery relevant to EEZ claims?

Please do provide the continental shelf map if possible (with source information). It would definitely improve the article. Some more information on the underlying geology would be nice too. -- Visviva 05:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • By the term of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Either side erects man-made structure on EEZ should notify the other side around EEZ, and it should not stand on public waterway，China clain Korea did not get Chinese agreement on the construcion, plus the rock stand in the route from Shanghai to Nagasaki. --yeahsoo 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the evidence which Socotra Rock is in "Provisional Waters Zone" (PMZ) of Korea and China in Japanese Yahoo news[18].thank everyone.but User:yeahsoo uploaded more detailed map.is the map really clear about copyright ?--Forestfarmer 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Marado

I've commented out the material about Marado for now, because there is no explanation of how it is relevant to the two countries' emphatically non-territorial dispute over Socotra Rock. If the content is restored, please also add an explanation of its relevance. -- Visviva 05:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please read the discussion above.

This item already gets common sense by the previous discussion. It contains no bias to any side, only list fact, it will be restored. -- Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I've read the above discussion, and am none the wiser as to what relevance this material, or much of the other material that has been added, has to the article subject. As other editors have made abundantly clear, there is no territorial dispute regarding this marine feature. As a submerged feature, this rock is not subject to territorial claims. Nor is it clear how Marado's status as "southern limit of Korea" would effect the EEZ dispute, since a) the EEZ is measured from each country's baseline (roughly the mainland coastline), and b) in any case, China is certainly not disputing South Korea's claim to Marado. Please clarify. -- Visviva 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see someone add "1951 territoy of Korea" bronze marker, it is Korea claim as a territory, that is why Marado stands important fact and affect this issue.As soon as Korea anounce Socotra is NOT Korean territory, Marado can be removed. --Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, can you find some evidence that this is verifiably relevant (i.e., has been adduced by the Chinese or Korean governments or their respective lackeys)? I understand that it seems relevant to you, but I simply don't see the connection between the ancient marker on Marado, the plaque laid by a bunch of Korean mountain-climbers in the 1950s, and the contemporary EEZ dispute. -- Visviva 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ieodo Research Station

I doubt if this site is reliable, it is more like Korean propganda site, a lot of the ref in this page come from the only one site, this reduce the credibility of this article. See, the station is to claim this rock, then you use the station site to prove its's history and belonging, this is called "A VICIOUS CIRCLE".Admin, I suggest this site can only be external link, not as a ref, should remove the ref and please provide ref from some other site. --Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the reference is not ideal. But what other site would you suggest? Prior to this recent silliness, very few people knew or cared about this little rock; hence, the preferred peer-reviewed English-language printed materials are rather difficult to come by. But while it's not ideal, I don't see why information provided by a government-run scientific research station should be considered "propaganda." If information provided by the South Korean government is all we have, then that's what we have. Information provided by the Chinese government would, I presume, be equally welcome here. And peer-reviewed English language sources will always be ideal, if they can be found. -- Visviva 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

--- government-run ==propaganda :)We need scholar source. And this site does not have ref, it might be original research----Yeahsoo 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to take this seriously if you had not yourself added Baidu Baike articles as references. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources; clearly a scholarly source is preferable. Government-run certainly does not equal propaganda in most cases (this is arguably an exception).

I would be very interested if you can find some proof that the research station was put on Socotra Rock for the purpose of making a territorial claim. Everything I've seen indicates that it was put there for the purpose of oceanographic research into the weather and current patterns of the East China Sea. It certainly seems to play a useful role in the South Korean government's typhoon-tracking system. -- Visviva 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---I add Baidu since it is similar site like wiki, while that research site is run by gov and you can do research on a ship. To build this platform, everyone know the real motivation Korean denied，evenif you want build platform build it in your territory sea instead of dispute area, it will be much reasonable. -- Yeahsoo 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Continental shelf map

This is a great addition to the article. Thanks to Yeahsoo for providing it. However, I would be very grateful if some clear source information is provided. At present the image description page simply says "author=Yeahsoo." However, this map was presumably not drawn freehand ; it must be based on preexisting data. I couldn't find a clear source. Can the source of the ocean-depth data please be provided, either here or on the article page? Thanks, -- Visviva 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---here I updated the licensing.--Yeahsoo

Um, I still don't see any source information on Image:Suyan rock eng.jpg. To be honest, it looks kind of like it was cropped from a commercial Chinese-language map with a bit of English-language text added, which makes me wonder if it can really be released under the GFDL. -- Visviva 14:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is a good question to doubt about the other map in this article. --Yeahsoo
  • I've now tagged Image:Suyan rock eng.jpg as {{nosource}}. Please show that it is from a GFDL-compatible source, or it will be deleted. As for the other map -- by which I mean commons:Image:Socotra Rock.png, it states its source quite clearly. However, it is also a walking WP:NPOV violation, since it presents distance as the most important fact. Neither of these maps are satisfactory; I suggest that we replace them both with a simple location-dot map showing where this reef lies. -- Visviva 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

distance map

• • • Now the Continental map is made by myself, background all in low resolution and doodled, meanwhile the distance map has no any source information,and might might trimmed from commercial global territory map, which makes me wonder if it can really be released under the GFDL. Plus it is against WP:NPOV, as it hints distance should determind the belonging. While on Liancourt Rocks, Korean support continetal shelf should be the key fact. I might consider tagged it as {{nosource}}, or someone can answer. --Yeahsoo 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Regarding the sourcing, I think you are confused. Commons:Image:Socotra Rock.png states quite clearly that it is created from commons:Image:WorldMap-A_non-Frame.png, which in turn was created from a public-domain resource. Looking at the respective images, this seems quite clearly to be correct. Regarding the NPOV issue, I agree; once again, I suggest that we replace both images with a simple location-dot map showing where the rock is located. That, in any case, is the information that most readers are likely to want, and is also non-controversial. -- Visviva 07:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the first picture is selfmade now, I do not see a reasone Chris 73 keeps reverting.--Yeahsoo 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is still the same copyrighted map, only the land areas are covered. Still a copyvio unless the original image is free. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Chris 73 above... just to clarify for others, the presumably non-free image we're discussing is Image:Suyan rock eng.jpg. -- Visviva 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The map is really unclear to me. There's no way I can tell by only looking at the information on the map which figure refers to the distance to which country. Some-body please re-draw this to make it clear. -- User:Kdammers 09:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shan Hai Jin

A "Su Rock" is listed in the Chinese ancient book "Shan Hai Jing," (475 BC ─ 221 BC) and mentioned the rock is in the East China Sea. In Chinese "Yan岩" means rock/hill山, "Su Rock苏山" equals "Suyan苏岩".[4]

I checked Shan Hai Jin 14th charpter in Wikisource. It says:

大荒之中，有山名曰猗天苏门，日月所生。

not as written in the reference link as:

大荒之中，有山名曰猗天苏山，日月所生。

Which is correct? Anyway, I think the source should be more authentic one rather than a post on BBS. Jjok 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource may be an exception, but normally we don't accept wikis as reliable sources. Of course forum posts aren't reliable sources either. We need someone with an actual copy of the Shan Hai Jing to clear this up, I think. -- Visviva 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• then wikisource is wrong, search 猗天苏山 in google, you get all 山海經 related records, search 猗天苏门, you get irrelative records--Yeahsoo 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • We don't accept Google searches as a reliable source either, sorry. -- Visviva 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It is just a example in the talk, in the article, the cited site is the most famous ancient Chinese scholar site, plus we don't accept wikis as reliable sources. I really think it is meaningless to waste time on the charactor, and you know I am right. --Yeahsoo 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not good idea to use wiki's reliability in excuse of leaving unreliable sources and I personally would like to ask you not make it less reliable. The best way is find more reliable sources, at least news papers or university websites instead of Baidu BBS, more preferably, books written by scholars or official commentary mentioning that 苏门 or 苏山 is pointing to 苏岩礁. It is also good way to ask the most famous Chinese scholar site that why there are 苏门 and 苏山. (I personally think 门 (gate) is still meaningful if Shan Hai Jing is further mentioning beyond the gate. The gate to Japan?) If you can find sources that 苏岩礁 is named after 苏门 or 苏山, that are very nice. Jjok 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you can find document other than wiki recource above has 苏门, please list it, while I can find thousands of 苏山.I will not keep on this topic, since that 苏门 is totally typo.--Yeahsoo 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 32 for "有山名曰猗天苏门".[19]
• Results 1 - 10 of about 82 for "有山名曰猗天苏山".[20]

about 1:3 of which 1 including universities and People's Daily sites thus it is very common, authentic, and more than personal typo. I think it actually has two versions.

In addition,

• Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "有山名曰猗天苏山" 苏岩[21] Results 1 - 7 of 7 for "有山名曰猗天苏山" 苏岩礁.[22]

look like in the range of WP:OR and trying to make it popular using wikipedia. The description need better back up. Maybe you can find some help here.抵制日货维护海权 Jjok 06:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

*1880-1890 Beiyang Fleet of China mapped Suyan Rock(Socotra Rock).

• 1880-1890 Beiyang Fleet of China mapped Suyan Rock(Socotra Rock).Beiyang fleet mapping-Encyclopedia Baidu

The description is based on unreliable source edited similar way to wikipedia. Actually, the initial part which is referring about the rock is copy-edit from the Chinese wikipedia article. Another part, "我国自组建北洋水师以来的海图即明确标明有东海苏岩，比韩国早一百年" also does not have any citations. Even the Chinese wikipedia article is asking for the sources.

On the other hand, the referred page also has a description: "隋唐以来日本、高丽循海路来中原进贡的使臣和留学生，以及唐、宋、明、清历代东渡扶桑的中华人士均曾目睹过苏岩，并留下了文献记载，历史古籍确认苏岩属中国无误。". Why don't you bring the sources from Chinese history books first before relying on unreliable source? I'm interested in them. Jjok 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of ths status quo

• Which country owns the island? Because if either one of the countries owns the island, then the name of the article should be in that country's indigenous language, as per the Wikipedia naming conventions (i.e. Dokdo & Tsushima). (Wikimachine 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

South Korea does. Good friend100 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Until the boundaries of each country's EEZ is settled, neither does, so it would be premature to rename the article at present. --Zonath^Yak 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

History clean-up needed

The time-line is inconsistent in its use of tense. -- User:Kdammers 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is in need of a thorough overhaul and cleaning

Regardless of the positions, this article is a mess. It is really messy grammatically and needs a thorough edit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.157.23 (talk • contribs) 00:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for a week, and restored the dispute to the state it was in prior to the current edit war. Please note that I am not saying that the pre-dispute version is correct...but I am saying that all of the parties need to talk about it here instead of edit warring. Any further edit warring after the protection expires will result in blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discovery

"1900: Socotra Rock is discovered by the British merchant vessel Socotra." Hm. Does this mean that the place had risen from the sea around this time? It is not very likely that Korean fishermen would have missed this phenomenon in earlier days. My Bing translation of the source does indeed use the word "discover," but I just question its accuracy. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Title

• "Socotra Rock" -wikipedia / 17,500 results in Google
• "Ieodo" -wikipedia / 36,800 results in Google
• "Ieo Island" -wikipedia / 10,700 results in Google
• "Suyan Rock" -wikipedia / 4,370 results in Google
• "Suyanjiao" -wikipedia / 61 results in Google (overlap)

For that reason, I would move into Ieodo if anyone doesn't object. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This requires further discussion. Besides WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV is an important factor here. Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Then, you stop stalking me, and start it for all. :( --Garam (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Garam, I believe there were three moves in all that I reverted. I am sorry I did not contact you immediately upon doing so. The first was when I noticed that a title of a political party you moved to didn't scan in English, so I reviewed some of your earlier moves. This led to two other reversions, because I became concerned about your moves in relation to the first bullet of WP:PMRR: "The editor demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus." I would strongly advise you to assume that any name change related to a territorial dispute, like this one, is controversial. Although I have left all the other political party pages where you moved them, given the discussion on the Bareunmirae Party, I would suggest that you treat the Korean political parties as changes needing move requests as well whenever there is any chance at all that someone might object. Dekimasuよ! 19:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that this move, in which you re-moved a page after your previous move had been reverted, is particularly problematic because it is contrary to the instructions at WP:RMUM: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves." Dekimasuよ! 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)