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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

I am the fist creater here for both 2 words,

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