Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident

Can the "Strength" section include "civilian fishing net"?

Adding this will make the meme people stop vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsaathoff (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Pass. Kuru (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It would make sense, as it is listed as part of the conflict. And technically, it would explain how a submarine and 9 personnel were lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.30.39 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be more informative than a blank. No evidence to put it under losses, though, as some vandals have been. Porphyro (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that would be a ridiculous change. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

5 men killed

Just so we’re all clear, there was a battle/struggle. The 5 men killed ‘lost’, and the 4 men who committed suicide won. For the battle description, the submarine is peripheral since it was the ‘location’ of the battle, rather than a combatant - semantics are important. Abattoir666 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The submarine became tangled in the fishing net, so they couldn't escape. The South Korean Navy was alerted and the crew locked themselves inside the submarine rather than surrendering. The murder-suicide took place after the submarine was taken under tow by the South Korean Navy corvette and presumably the crew scuttled the submarine to prevent the South Koreans from investigating it. The conflict was still between North and South Korea and not between North Koreans. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The competition here isn’t between a submarine and nothing. There was no battle until those four zealous crew members decided to make one. The submarine being captured isn’t worthy of an infobox - but the later portion of the incident and the casualties involved necessitate one. Abattoir666 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. The submarine was captured by the South Koreans, then the murder-suicide took place. I can't be bothered arguing with you so will raise an RFC.Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Infobox

There is no consensus on which infobox version mentioned in the opening statement should be used owing to the lack of discussion on that question. There is a rough consensus that {{Infobox military conflict}} should be replaced with a different template such as {{Infobox event}}.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

How should the infobox for this incident be presented? [1] or [2]? Mztourist (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'd honestly prefer something like Infobox event, seeing as there wasn't really a military engagement here. Sure, the NYT talks about "a struggle" taking place, according to speculation from the South Korean military, but does this need a conflict infobox for such a minor "battle"? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Infobox Military Conflict doesn't seem appropriate here - in fact, it's downright confusing. (Hohum ^@) 15:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

We have an infobox-conflict for those two US military boats “captured” by Iran, despite there being no discernible conflict - (apart from the US navy “technically” breaking the law - which usually isn’t a breach worthy of note given the frequency of military craft trespassing on sovereign territory). At least in this case one party killed the members of another party, or rather there was a struggle. A boat simply being captured isn’t worth an infobox on its own, especially for a warship the size of this one. Abattoir666 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Hohum on this one. Infobox Military Conflict is more confusing than informative. We should try something else. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Proposal for infobox

Part of Korean Conflict
Date 22 June 1998 Location Offshore of Sokcho, Gangwon-do Result Loss of North Korean submarine and personnel
Belligerents
South Korea	North Korea
Strength
1 corvette	1 submarine 9 personnel
Casualties and losses
None	1 submarine captured 9 dead (5 by murder, 4 by suicide)

I would suggest to modify the infobox this way to reflect the involvement of a South Korean corvette towing away the submarine and the murder/suicide deaths of the North Korean crew of the submarine as a result of the submarine being towed away. I think, the conflict infobox is appropriate, as the whole situation unfolded as a result of the ongoing Korean conflict. I would not call it a victory, as technically there wasn't a battle. Hope this helps. --213.61.24.235 (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Mztourist (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Civilian fishing boat

If the idea here is reaching a consensus, then how come it's mostly one person vs everyone else? Shouldn't this be up to the majority who believes that the fishing boat was sufficiently part of the event? Wakuljrv (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Because only you and some earlier page vandals/jokers keep adding fishing boat or fishing net to the Infobox, the page has previously been protected for that reason which shows that Admins agree that such additions are inappropriate. The fact that the submarine became entangled in a fishing net isn't relevant information to be contained in the Infobox, nor is the fact that a fishing boat reported it to the South Korean Navy. The confrontation was the capture of the submarine by the South Korean ship, the North Korean commandos then apparently murdered the submarine crew, committed suicide and scuttled the sub and that is what the Infobox should reflect. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be completely fine with not adding the net as part of the strength, as that was by complete chance. I will point out, though, that the civilians did not report the submarine by chance, and did it with purpose, again showing that they had a particular side in this conflict. Had they not reported it, this event never would have happened. Wakuljrv (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

South Korean fishermen reported the submarine to the Coast Guard/Navy as they were legally obliged to do, nothing at all unusual about that in South Korea or in any other country, that does not make them a party to the incident. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's not unusual, as these citizens worked with their military to help them, they initiated the event. As I've said, this wouldn't have happened without the civilians. They had every chance to not report the submarine and there is no way they would have been caught. They chose to involve themselves to help their side. Wakuljrv (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In an irregular warfare situation civilians report infiltrators/insurgents to their military, that doesn't make them a belligerent, otherwise many infoboxes would include all sorts of random people. How do you know "They had every chance to not report the submarine and there is no way they would have been caught"? There is absolutely nothing to support that. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you established consensus around this edit, Mztourist? Or is this just an edit war you've engaged in for the last four years? — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 17:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred this for the last 4 years as you state. I and others have preserved the consensus against vandals and jokers like you. You are welcome to open an RfC, until then stop editwarring this contentious issue. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of fishing boat in infobox

Should the infobox contain the fishing boat whose net ensnared the submarine in the 'strength' section? — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 03:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My position is as follows: in this situation, the fishing boat's crew engaged in a belligerent act by refusing to release the net or aid the submarine, thereby actively restraining the submarine until the corvette arrived to tow it. There is significant support for including the fishing boat in the infobox - the only opposition thereto is a single user who dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' five years ago and has policed this article with their opinion on what is 'ridiculous' ever since, engaging in edit wars with no less than five people in the last year alone. This is not a firm basis for consensus. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 03:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The User who opened this RFC is making up details to support their position. There is no RS that "the fishing boat's crew engaged in a belligerent act by refusing to release the net or aid the submarine, thereby actively restraining the submarine until the corvette arrived to tow it." Rather a South Korean fishing boat observed the submarine on the surface entangled in the driftnet. There is nothing that confirms that the net came from the fishing boat and a driftnet, by definition drifts. There was no "belligerent act" by the fishing boat and they had no obligation to aid the submarine. Under South Korean national security laws every citizen is required to report suspicious activity to the police/military and that is what they did, that was the sole involvement of the fishing boat. The corvette arrived, the submarine crew locked themselves in the submarine and the corvette towed the submarine back to port during which the murder/suicide and scuttling took place. We don't put the person who called the police in crime infoboxes and putting the fishing boat or the driftnet (as various "jokers" have suggested over the years) in the infobox is like putting the earth in the infobox for a plane crash. Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) - Nothing in the article implies that the fishing crew had any active role in the incident, or that they did anything other than notify South Korean authorities. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - If I wanted to say something ridiculous, I would suggest that the fish led the submarine into the net in order to disable the net so that it wouldn't catch any more fish. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as much as I appreciate the "1 fishing net" joke that pops up from time to time when this article is posted on an open forum, I'm struggling to find a rational way to even include the fishing boat in the list of units involved. As noted, there is nothing in any source I can find that indicates the civilians took any hostile action, or even that it was the boat's driftnet. "Actively restraining" seems to be an original interpretation. Frankly, using a military conflict infobox just invites this kind of misuse; it may be worth removing or replacing it with a more suitable summary. Kuru (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose (Summoned by bot) - Nothing in the article implies that the fishing crew had any active role in the incident, or that they did anything other than notify South Korean authorities. per Robert McClenon. And no sources are offered here. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Please change "The bodies of the members of submarine crew were subsequently buried in the Cemetery for North Korean and Chinese Soldiers." to "The bodies of the members of submarine crew were subsequently returned to North Korea in a ceremony that took place in Panmunjon on July 3rd, 1998". AngelGMwiki (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References