Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

Requested move 4 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mccunicano (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Korean Navy radar lock-on incident → 2018 Japanese-Korean Naval dispute – Current title name, 'Korean Navy radar lock-on incident' has Point-of-view of Japan. currently, this is an ongoing issue and there is a big difference in the way each party perceives this issue. Thus, the name of this article needs to be neutralized. I suggest moving this article to '2018 Japanese-Korean Naval dispute'. I refer to the article 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute as neutral article name. Funny365com (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment – "naval" should be lower case (as in the example given, 2008 Bangladesh–Myanmar naval standoffm List of naval battles, etc). 178.164.139.37 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you for your opinion. I changed N to lowercase. Funny365com (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Move to 2018 Japanese-South Korean naval dispute. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I Agree to Changing proposed title name to 2018 Japanese-South Korean naval dispute. Funny365com (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - hello, I'm new in here;) Can anyone help me to improve this document? I don't know many thing about editing wikipedia ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

---

2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute → 2018 Japanese–South Korean naval dispute – The name discussed in the previous discussion was changed to another name because of WP:precision claiming. But this name is still controversial and not precise in terms of inclusiveness. there are multiple points of dispute:
1. Did South Korean Destroyer locked on JMSDF's Maritime Patrol Aircraft?
2. Did Japanese JMSDF Patrol Aircraft threat South korean destroyer by low-altitude flying, which operating rescue?
and so trivial arguments on. And now each party denies the others' claim. In summary, it's better to name 2018 Japanese-South Korean naval dispute, because it includes multiple points of dispute and more precise to a current situation in terms of inclusiveness. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

comment I agree to change the name of title since the usage of STIR-180 is not the only point of this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.192.45 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: current article title has no consensus, and it looks like JPOV. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Primary issue of this article is a "radar lock-on" incident. The low altitude flight issue is raised by the Korean defense ministry as a counter argument. There is no news article which describes this incident as "naval dispute".[1] There is a plenty of news articles which report this incident with a key word "radar lock-on".[2] Even Korean news articles, "radar claim", ""radar conflict" and "radar dispute" are used in their headlines. Using "naval dispute" is a violation of WP:NOR. For reference, the title of Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia article is "Korean Navy radar irradiation incident". As for Korean article, an initial title "Japanese maritime patrol plane incident" was renamed to Japan-Korea naval conflict" by the nominator of this RM.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It still doesn't explain enough huge perception gap between Japan and S.Korea. for instance, each government states totally different statements regarding this event, recognizing event as a naval threat caused by each other's government. refer to official statements and Youtube video of each government: Japan[3][4] S.Korea [5] MND Official-Urging Japan to Apologize for Patrol Operations in the Rescue Operations Area
  As you can See, The statement of Japanese Government described as "Regarding the incident of an ROK naval vessel directing its fire-control radar at an MSDF patrol aircraft", While S.Korean Government States as "... threatening low-altitude flight by a patrol aircraft of the Japanese Maritime Self Defense". Even if it is counter-argument, still there are multiple points of dispute, and each government denying each others' claim and it's even not clear that whether or not there was 'radar lock-on'. So, I think suggested title doesn't violating WP:NOR, Even not to mention about the previous title, "Korean navy radar lock-on incident", is indisputably JPOV-That's totally following Japanese government point of view.
  Regarding a reason why media described this event as 'radar-lock on', we should consider this is recent event that not even past 3 weeks and nature of these events are sensitive diplomatic, thus a situation changed every day by day. So even Korean media has no-way but describing this event as 'radar lock on' or somewhat, since These events started with Japanese government claim, and the reaction of S.Korean Government followed with a time difference. - Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The issue about threatening flight already has several discussion because legitimacy of patrol plane's flight can be interpreted in different ways:ICAO or CUES. [1] --lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think it’s better to take and be based on a third party’s view, neither the first party (Japan) nor the second (South Korea). For instance, news in English from media of U.S., U.K. and so on. --Doraemonplus (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of sources are saying radar. Moreover, saying naval incident would convey the (wrong) impression that two surface ships have exchanged gun shots, torpedoes, or what else. When saying radar, it conveys the (correct) impression that no actual weapons exchange has taken place. Trying to play the POV card here is irrelevant since saying radar says nothing about "was the military Japanese aircraft legitimate when flying so close to a Korean ship ?" nor about "was the Korean ship legitimate when acting not only as a device to burn large amounts of taxpayers' money but also as a self-protecting device ?". Pldx1 (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Please see 2008 U.S.–Iranian naval dispute. This dispute is also not about gun shots or torpedoes etc. And a few days ago, South Korean defense Ministry released a new video that Japan should apologize for Japanese patrol aircraft's low-altitude flight near a South Korean destroyer. #1 After that, "lock-on" dispute turned to various issues between Japan and South Korea. #2, #3, #4, #5. Thus, now it is POV that the title "radar lock-on dispute" is still claimed. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• The story can be rewritten as: a Japanese aircraft was flying at 5.000 feets above the sea level, and the crew was peacefully writing some haikus. Then, unexpectedly, a Korean warship (the destroyer Gwanggaeto) jumped from the sea-level and went close to the peaceful aircraft (who carried torpedos, mines, depth charges, air-to-surface missiles, and so on, in order to be the most possibly peaceful). The flying Korean warship went even to activate the radar warning receivers of the aircraft, turning sour the taste of the haikus. One can also rewrite the story as: better be armed with a fire control radar when encountering the proverbial armed bad guy. But, in any case, a radar is involved. You cannot cope with that, and the title must reflect this fact (reflected by this other fact that most sources are saying "radar"). Pldx1 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is not an event which each party just has different perception at a single point of dispute, not as you wrote. this is an event which has multiple points of dispute, and each party recognize event totally different. The 'radar' is merely one of the points of dispute in this ongoing dispute between Japan and South Korea. The story should be rewritten like this: "Japanese naval aircraft flown over Korean Naval ship. Afterwhile, Japanese says that Korean naval ship threatens us by locking on a radar. South Korean says that Japanese naval aircraft threatens us by flying over at low-altitude." In a nutshell, this is not the disputed event that just arguing whether or not there was 'Radar lock-on'. That's the point. the title just focused on 'radar' event only, which just narrowing sight to 'radar' but nothing. And here is my question: Could we say this title has a precision and an NPOV?
  And regarding a media frequently described this event as 'radar-lock on', we should consider this is the recent event, as I wrote above. These events started with Japanese government claim, and the reaction of the S.Korean Government followed with a time difference. So even Korean media has no-way but describing this event as 'radar lock on' or somewhat in the first phase of dispute.- Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• I wonder if that is true. That’s no more than a story invented by an anonymous editor. While the Japan Times described it as “the Dec. 20 radar lock-on incident” as of January 9, in the Korea Times’ opinion [6] as of January 4, it is said “radar row”, “radar spat” and “radar dispute” as the reason for which Japan should apologize. With these citations, we need to be in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V as well as WP:POV. Thus, it seems the title of this article should, at least, be including the word “radar” and be more specific than a “naval dispute” for the time being. Seeking more NPOV-based title, we have to wait for quite a while until this row settled down conclusively, when some inclusive reliable sources will be available. --Doraemonplus (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• According to third party's press,“radar dispute”is not the only reason for which the Government of Korea claims Japan should apologize.[7] Though the usage of radar and the threatening flight are currently not provable due to the hesitation of both countries to reveal their data; they still have discussion about exchanging their records. Moreover, about the matter of the threatening flight, there are several different point of views based on different rules applied, and different interpretations based on previous incidents about threatening flights. Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Although an event can always be viewed from different angles, adding the contents without citations is not allowed due to WP:NOR and WP:V. Article titles also need to follow these policies. Is there any reliable citations calling this event “naval dispute” or “threatening flights”? --Doraemonplus (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• My comment is just to remind that both the "radar" and the "flight" are currently acknowledged as independent arguments[8], not the matter of changing the title. This incident is known as "radar spat" because it was initiated by Japan's claim about the usage of the radar.Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I regarded it as a proposal in the context of a requested move since here it is. Then, regarding the matter of changing the title, are you sure about not changing the present title or moving it to an alternative title? --Doraemonplus (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, honestly, I (or anyone) can't say which one is clearly better then the other one. south korean press still call this incident both threatening flight[9] and radar spat, since both of them are currently unprovable. I think we should keep this matter opened, waiting for further information. Thanks for your response for clarification ;) Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with you on waiting for further information to determine which title is likely the best. It would be better to keep the current title as a provisional one until further reliable sources are available. Thanks for your dialoguing :-) --Doraemonplus (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Referring to the JMSDF as a 'navy' is itself a controversial use of words. Although the JMSDF does on some occasions use the call sign Japanese Navy while in the field, officially speaking the JMSDF is a self-defense force and not a navy. The Japanese government states [10] that SDF personnel are not combatants under the Geneva Conventions, therefore their stance is that the JMSDF consists solely of civillian personnel and is not what is labeled as a navy in other nations. 'Japanese Navy' would translate to '日本海軍' in Japanese, and the use of the word 軍(military) is controversial both inside Japan and in neighbouring countries. There are Japanese politicians trying to rename the JMSDF as a 日本国防海軍 (Japanese Defense Navy), but that's a mere proposal and is not widely accepted, having caused controversy in 2012. At formal ceremonies and in legal documents, the JMSDF (日本海上自衛隊) is translated to English as self-defense force. The proposed title, "2018 Japanese–South Korean naval dispute" is likely against WP:NPOV by using the word 'naval' in relation to Japan, and this needs to be revised (such as replacing it with 'maritime') for this page to be moved and given a new name.
  This issue is no longer an argument between the ROKN and JMSDF, which can be verified by media reports from both sides. Korean media criticizes Prime Minister Abe for using this issue to boost his popularity, as evidenced in 아베가 '레이더 동영상' 공개 지시…지지율 회복 꼼수, [11]. Japanese media accuse President Moon of using this issue to raise his popularity, as in 文在寅大統領の“陰謀”に乗せられるな, [12]. After the release of the videos by both sides the conflict shifted from being a mere maritime dispute to a larger political brawl between Korea and Japan, involving the leaders of both nations, politicians, the media, various activists, and public opinion. The proposed title "2018 Japanese–South Korean naval dispute" is too narrow to adress the present situation, while the current title, that only gives the name of the two nations is more broad and aptly covers the ongoing development of this issue. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment.That's merely semantics to say a "navy" or otherwise. Such argument is distracting what's really happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.8.168 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. When seeing how the article is written now, a better title could be: "Wikipedia drowning an incident into a letter soup, radar involved". Time to close, maybe ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC
• Comment.I propose the name discussed should be "Suspicion of Violation over UN North Korea Sanction in Japan Sea" as the incident involved in not only Korea Coast Guard but Korean Navy ship is at the scene while there seem no distress signals dispatched by the North Korean fishing boat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.8.168 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• If you want to put those tracts "being said", you ought to suggest reliable sources not from articles from anonymous authors based on their imaginations. I think the first things you should do is explaining why they were stuck in "spy ship," far away from the S.Korea's coast, and why they used wooden 1t outdated vessel, taking high risks. Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per User:Phoenix7777 and User:Hms1103. The article is about the specific dispute on the radar lock-on and the subsequent fallout and other effects or arguments that resulted from it. We go by what

WP:Reliable sources say and in this case, they say radar by an overwhelming margin. Keiiri (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose per User:Canadian1984. The crux and origin of the dispute is related to the radar lock-on. The secondary disputes of fly-by or NK sanction breach by themselves are not taken up as main topics by the majority of the press. The term naval dispute is not immediately recognizable, does not seem natural, seems a bit ambiguous (not precise), etc. and appears to breach wikipedia article title policies.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wish it improved with citations from third-party sources

In relation to what I’ve commented above, I’d like all of editors to improve this article with the following apparently third-party sources in order to achieve WP:NPOV, though I’m not good at writing complicated text in English.

• Japan accuses South Korea of 'extremely dangerous' radar lock on plane (21 Dec 2018)
• Japan, South Korea in Row Over Alleged Radar-Lock Incident (26 Dec 2018)
• Tokyo accuses South Korean destroyer of directing fire-control radar at Japanese MPA (31 Dec 2018)
• South Korea releases video to dispute Japanese fire-control radar accusations (4 Jan 2019)

With my best regards. --Doraemonplus (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Those links are explaining what happened according to both country's claim without opinions except stating few historical relationship that might have any association with this incident. They can be used for references for each country's statements, but it is not enough to achieve WP:NPOV since they don't have any point of view. Thanks for your effort to improve this document ;) Lucas.h.k 2001 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan" vs "East Sea"edit]

An IP is attempting to add "East Sea" to Sea of Japan, claiming that people might think Sea of Japan means that it is Japanese territory.

Sea of Japan is the standard English term for this body of water, and no territoriality is intended. I don't see any need to change the current article. Meters (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NC-SoJ, the name East Sea should mentioned here after the first link to Sea of Japan in parenthesis since this article deals with Japanese-South Korean relations only. After that, the name should solely be Sea of Japan. ∻ℳcCunicanℴ 07:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A controversy is often controversialedit]

At the top of the article, we had:

This template generates only a bunch of weasel words.

1. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject. This amounts to say that sources from Korea or from Japan are to be discarded. But using only The Walrus Weekly from the South Pole seems unpracticable.
2. The neutrality of this article is disputed. Who disputes what, on which basis ? There is a Korean governmental point of view, there is a Japanese governmental point of view. They are not the same. This is the definition of a controversy. Saying this article is not neutral is saying that one of the points of view is over-represented. Being more specific ?
3. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. After such a strong assertion, strong proofs should be given. But this seems to be only a template generated casting of aspersions, that can be summarized as someone (may be a proud pink person) thinks that any Korean person is necessarily a pro-Korea liar, while any Japanese person is necessarily a pro-Japan liar. This is only wrong, and perhaps quite offensive.

And therefore, I have suppressed this template. If someone has something more precise to say, this Talk Page is the right place. Pldx1 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Do not move maintenance tags from the article to the talk page. I have now restored two of the above tags (you provided a seemingly policy-backed explanation for one of the three tags you removed -- the COI one, where the issue seems to be the misunderstanding, fairly common in this kind of topic area, that COI and bias are the same thing -- and I have left that one out). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dear all: User: Lucas.h.k 2001 (102 edits), User: Mccunicano (58 edits), User: Panda 51 (20 edits), User: KeiTakahashi999 (19 edits), User: Zeke7140 (16 edits), User: Chanwu (11 edits), User: Bluepolarbear247 (10 edits), User: Garam (9 edits). You are the main contributors to the article 2018_Japan–South_Korea_radar_lock-on_dispute. Since the neutrality of this article is disputed, you have perhaps something to say in the discussion. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What this article's authors think is irrelevant. You are not allowed move maintenance tags to the talk page just because you disagree with them. Do not do so again. If you feel the issues have been appropriately addressed, say so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)