Talk:Daecheong incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality[edit]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.43.200 (talk • contribs)

What is that? talk it in detail plz. -- Modamoda (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea media itself has no neutrality. We should even consider removal of the event on North Korean point of view. Kadrun (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of political view, Wikipedia is not a battleground and hence reports from North Korea media must be included for fair and balanced view. Even reputable ones like CNN, Yonhap do republish news from North Korea as well. User:ussr_1991 - 27 June 2016, 21:51 GMT+8
This discussion is obviously dormant. The original concern was raised over seven years ago by a naked IP address. Therefore conditions are met to remove the NPOV tag. (If anyone disagrees, they can always add the tag and create a new discussion that clarifies the NPOV issues.) Amead (talk)

Location[edit]

I can find no source stating that the battle occured of Daechung, rather the only location i have so far seen is a different island. If someone could provide a source that states Daechung, I'd greatly appreciate it.XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Korean War?[edit]

Didnt the war as we know it end over 40 years ago? I didnt hear either side declare war again but rather a cesefire remains in effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question:), the war is techinically still going on as there was never a peace treaty signed only a ceasefire. There has been fighting on and off between the two Koreas since the ceasefire was signed. Read some of the events listed in the campaign box that happened after the cease fire.XavierGreen (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Is the title of the article related to any third-party source? What are other sources calling this event? Is this really the best title? (Not meaning to disparage the good work that is being done on this article.) 19:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The title is correct as there is no real name for the battle yet. Most nameless naval battles are titled Action of (insert date). There are a whole host of articles titled as such on wikipedia, some of which are featured articles.XavierGreen (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its now been renamed to "Battle of Daecheong". Is this the name now? Has it been used by news sources?-- Coasttocoast (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A news agency for example JoongAng Daily uses this expression for the issue. But still, each news agencies use their own expression like "Battle in Yellow Sea". Of course, there are no official comments of naming this event from Ministry of National Defense, South Korea -- Modamoda (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the MilHist project has specific guidelines on this, but if we were just coming up with the most recognizable English title, it would be something along the lines of November 2009 North-South Korean naval skirmish. Joshdboz (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe "the action of ..." will be the proper name for this document. As XavierGreen said :-) -- Modamoda (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joint Chiefs of Staff declared on 2009-11-16 that the official name of the conflict will be Battle of Daecheong. However, the person who renamed the article should have waited until the government gives official name. Kadrun (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome and sources[edit]

I agree that NK sources have to be kept with a good deal of skepticism, but South Korean evaluations of North's losses after unconfirmed rumours of defectors aren't exactly precise. As it's not exactly established the general outcome. At the best it could be considered as "indecisive" or "both sides claimed victory", because both stated that the other side crossed the line and then returned. Once again, it's true that NK sources can easily be inflated, but nothing assure us that South Korean ones are 100% sure or impartial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.152.5 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, it cannot be assumed as an indecisive battle just because of the claim of victory on both sides. Although both sides claimed victory, it was eventual retreat of the North Koreans that leads this article to being titled the way it is. A retreat is the same, regardless of the cause, and even though it may have been an internal decision, the outcome was the South Koreans holding the line after the North Koreans had left. South Korea's sources may not be 100% correct, but they are much more reputable than the North Korean number, which are almost always lied about or inflated. The fact that only South Korea revealed estimated casualty numbers in an accurate sense is a good enough point to prove their validity. North Korea simply stated that they won and that South Korea is lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3D00:15:E2F8:47FF:FE23:4262 (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indecisive means the battle produced no clear, effective results. This is especially true if we've as in this case absolutely no confirmation of the actual damage suffered by the North Korean ship (if there was any). But reguardless the effect, the main thing it's doubt is "eventual retreat of the North Koreans". This is was stated by South Koreans, in direct opposition to what stated by North Koreans. Even if we don't consider the material damage suffered (a western-style navy as the South Korean one usually have much more worry about hown damage or causalties, while this can be less true for the North Koreans), the outcome of the engagement is far for being clear or impartially represented by this article. Actually even if i may agree that North Korean sources aren't "clean", i'm a bit much skeptical about the South Korean "claims": for example they claimed that North Korean suffered heavy losses during the accident of gunfire exchange of 2013, but satellite's photos checked by analysts shown actually that South Korean shells missed all the MLRSs position (that were already probably relocated) and only one shell could have hit the wall of a single North Korean barrack/building on an islet. From such photos, analysts as Joseph Bermudez (western) stated that North Koreans suffered probably minimal to none damage by South Korean counter-shelling: and this is exactly what North Koreans stated. Plus the "extimates" are far from being accurate about this Battle of Daechong: they're just rough newspapers info, basically rumours from supposed defectors that claim to have heard about them. A bit too much weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.11.159.112 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One-sided account it's not right.[edit]

Rise again the question, as for the other naval clashes in last decades between North Korea and South Korea, reguarding the fact that most of the outcomes of battles (first and second battle of yeon., battle of dae.) are too much pro-SK without actual confirmation.

Claims of South Korean victory are reguarded as official evualuation, (even in accidents that could have easily ended with mutual retreat after gunfight, with a result that can be evalued as "indecisive"), even if in some accounts we have full claims of victory from north.

Wikipedia (if i'm right) doesn't make differences of official sources because we like them or not: if both sides claim victory in battle (in modern battles), the outcome can't be described much differently.

Not to mention the fact that claims of SouthKorean press of North's casualties and loss are unproved, at best from unclear sources ("defectors rumors") and at worst biased and inflated (just like the North one, that are however poorer of details). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupodimare89 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is related to the NPOV tag. This discussion is obviously dormant as the issue was raised three years ago with no replies. Therefore conditions are met to remove the NPOV tag. (If anyone disagrees, they can always add the tag and create a new discussion that clarifies the NPOV issues.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amead (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Daecheong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– Inappropriate, POV titles, not supported by any reliable source. Request moves to descriptive, non-judgemental titles. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These articles describe three border incidents off the Korean coast between 1999 and 2009. Despite some casualties and material loss none of them amounts to more than a brief exchange of gunfire between patrol boats in time of peace (or at least, not open hostilities) yet the term 'Battle of…' suggests an event on a par with (for example) the Battle of the Yellow Sea.
Sources given describe them variously (and internally) as 'actions, clashes, altercations or battles' (lower case); no reliable source refers to any of them as 'the Battle of…' (upper case) and a search for those terms produces only copies of the articles here, or pages that post-date them. Such definitive naming is at best Original Research, and at worst an attempt to use wikipaedia to increase usage of the term(s).
This request is made here as a prior discussion at MILHIST suggests it is not uncontroversial. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: So, do you have any reliable sources that call them by these names? Something that pre-dates the articles, and isn’t just a copy of them? And, 'ongoing conflict': We don’t use this format for any of the other unresolved strife in the world (eg. between India and Pakistan, the two Chinas, Israel and her neighbours, etc) so why use it here? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the names originally come from the South Korean military and other Korean news sources (Yeonpyeong Haejeon translates to Sea Battle of Yeonpyeong) and that's the Korean title of the Northern Limit Line (film). In relation to the ongoing conflict, as the BBC never stops pointing out in its lazy soundbite, the two Koreas are technically still at war since the Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace agreement, which as you correctly note is the same for most post WWII conflicts. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The North/South Korea Boundary Dispute in the Yellow (West) Sea on page 143 it refers to "The brief battle on June 15, 1999" (1st Yeonpyeong) on page 145 it refers to " a major naval clash" on June 29 2002 (2nd Yeonpyeong) and then later on pages 147 and 148 it refers to June 29 2002 as an "incident". The book North Korea's Military-Diplomatic Campaigns, 1966-2008 on page 154 refers to the Battle of Yeonpyeong. Korea Times story here: [1]. Reuters in 2010 with [2]. US Pacific Command: [3] etc. so I think that reliable sources exist for battle as well as incident, skirmish, clash etc. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a small battle is called a "skirmish" if this is using descriptive titles, then "skirmish" is better than "incident" -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but border clashes occurring when there isn’t a war going on are generally described as 'incidents', which is how we describe the other post-armistice clashes in this region. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Battle of" suggests this is a widely accepted, if not standard, name, and as the nom said, sounds too much like a POV title. Proposed titles are less POV and more sutiable titles. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Berrely, I think "battle" can easily be seen as a misleading and potentially POV classification while "incident" is a good description of the events. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daecheong_incident&oldid=1206764202"