Talk:Japanese sea lion

ooen? -- Zoe

• I'm going to take a wild guess and edit it as "open." Joyous 02:36, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Older Edit History Deleted?

There weer older edit histories for this article that seems to be missing for some reason. I personal made edits and added references and in the edit history it's not there. Seems like older article was deleted and this new one started for some reason. Older article included descriptions of distribution, referenced information and was generally informative. Now with even the history tampered with, I can't access past versions of this article. Anyone know what's going on?melonbarmonster 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Lactose, stop your POV pushing. The reference is fine and it needs to stated without prejudice.melonbarmonster 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the statement came from the Korea Times is prejudiced? I truly apologize if I'm incorrect, but I believe it really is from the Korea Times... —LactoseTI^T 00:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. Leave the reference alone and stop shadowing my edits.melonbarmonster 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Any third parties here? Please comment.melonbarmonster 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Third party reqested. No names for anonymity's sake.01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that the assertion by the Korean Times is speculative and only one among several theories for extinction. Without scientific proof it is just an opinion. I think that stating that the opinion is asserted by the Korean Times within the text is appropriate. --Kevin Murray 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: It seems awkward to have "which the Korea Times suggested in an article" in that sentence, and it may also be POV. Why not just rewrite the sentence to say "One potential cause of their extinction was harvesting by Japanese trawlers in the early 20th century" and a reference to the article? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine by me; my point is we should not say explicitly that it is the cause, even though the article seems to say that. I should have provided diffs I guess; if I recall, the one version was "it is the cause," the other was "The Korean Times says it is the cause," and now somehow it got to the awkward "The Korean Times suggests it is a cause." —LactoseTI^T 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's "one potential cause" or it's "one theory among several" are our subjective opinions. This is an example of when we should let the facts speak for themselves and just state what the reference states. Concerns about stating different causes and possibilities, factors that contributed to extinction are already addressed in the text with the paragraph clearly stating that "there are several causes".melonbarmonster —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the argument was whether or not the article should say "The Korea Times." I don't think Wiki references are supposed to state the source in the text itself; that's why it's included in the template, and in the reference at the bottom. Yet it seems that Kevin Murray went ahead and edited the article without waiting for this issue to be resolved. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff to which I was referring. I probably phrased the request very poorly; melon--unless I'm wrong, it seems like you would like it to say definitively that "it caused." As for it not stating the source, that's perfectly acceptable (and often necessary) to help the reader understand the source in context. I'm not certain this is necessary here, but I might suggest Kevin Murray's version reads much less awkwardly than before the third opinion request. —LactoseTI^T 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. I disagree. The "including: " phrase seemed rather awkward to me. I just took another shot at it; if you feel mine is worse, though, change it back. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your version. —LactoseTI^T 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. your fine tune helped to clarify. --Kevin Murray 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference clearly states that extinction was caused by Japanese trawlers. The dispute was originally over HOW this was to be reflected in the text of the article. Now, the cause of extinction is entirely deleted! Please take care to explain edits further before making changes in the text. I'll refrain from changing the text again and wait for further discussion.melonbarmonster 16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What if we restructure the line "The Korea Times estimated that 16,500 sea lions were harvested by Japanese trawlers in the early 1900's" to include more of a connection? How about something like, "Additionally, harvesting by Japanese trawlers in the early 1900s (as many as 16,500 sea lions(ref)) is considered to be another cause of the sea lions' extinction." Would that be sufficient? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's better but I'm generally against injecting our own opinion or spin beyond what the reference actually states. If we had more references that state trawlers were one of several causes or gave another primary cause for extinction, we would have to reconcile the different references. But right now, we have two reference that clearly state overfishing by Japanese commercial fishing caused the extinction.melonbarmonster 17:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But now the article is contradictory. At the top, it states that there are several causes for their extinction, yet the sentence you add clearly attributes it to trawlers. Do you not give any credence to those other causes? And what is the second reference that you mentioned? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I revised the wording of that sentence so that there's no possible contradiction. But that issue aside, references still needs to be stated accurately as it's presented in the references without injection of our own opinion or spin. If we had competing references then we would have to reconcile in the language of the text to be edited but right now the references are clear.melonbarmonster 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I added another reference that states that Japanese trawlers(we can change this to fishing) caused extinction in the early half of 20th century. We now have 2 references that state this. It's wiki policy to let the facts speak for themselves under WP:NPOV.

I didn't write the part of there being several causes and I wouldn't mind having it removed. However, I didn't remove it for sake of compromise and because I don't entirely disagree with it and I don't see it conflicting with references I have included.melonbarmonster 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the IUCN link? The direct line is "However, the main reason for the extinction of the Japanese Sealion is thought to be persecution by fishermen." In use of the word "thought to be", that seems to express some level of uncertainty. The IUCN link mentions multiple causes, so I think it should stay in. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No I don't mean the IUCN article but I did add the IUCN List as a reference since it's where most of the original text in the article came from. I added the reference a looooong time ago but for some reason a earlier version of this article was deleted along with edits, edit history, etc. and the current version of this article was started from fresh a while back. I just added it back again.

There's currently several references that state and detail Japanese fishing records leading to extinction.melonbarmonster 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

First, please indent your comments; I've been doing it for you until now. I do not like the latest set of updates, and I grow weary of this back-and-forth editing. The edits keep getting more and more drastic, and I think it needs to be taken to the next level. I was only brought in for a third opinion, and I think I've outstayed my welcome. As I am rather busy in the next few days, I do not have the time to invest in this. Therefore, I would advise either melon or Lactose to put in an RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Indentations get more cumbersome than helpful after about 3 or 4 in my opinion.melonbarmonster 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I offered about 5 new references to support the initial reference in question. So far NO competing references have been offered. So far the only grounds for opposition to these references that's been offered is Japanese POV and nothing else. WP:NPOV clearly states "let facts speak for themselves".

This is a rather simple matter and RfC would only be necessary to stop the reversions being made by Lactose, Komdori, etc..

And Komdori, please don't make blanket reversions. I've done some work to research and include new references along with edit explanations and participation in this talk page. You can't just revert without explanation and participation in this talk page.melonbarmonster 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm really impressed with the quality of the paragraph now. I sense that there was some frustration yesterday, but together the group did a great job. Assuming good faith on the interpretation of the non-english sources, this is outstanding information. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to try and see what this has to offer:

Nakamura K (1992) The tragic marine mammal, Japanese sea lion, Zalophus californianus japonicus (Peters, 1866). Aquabiology 14: 185–189 (in Japanese with English abstract)

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia entry

As for the other point of contention--the Korean wikipedia entry link should stay; if you do not like the Korean name for the article, go to the Korean wikipedia and request a move there. —LactoseTI^T 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine for now.melonbarmonster 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference Regarding Extinction

Added reference from IUCN Red List. The text comes from the IUCN list anyways but wasn't referenced for some reason by whoever made the initial edit.melonbarmonster 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiple references added including specific data from Japanese fishing records. Hope this ends the edit warring.melonbarmonster 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding this reference. I have been looking for the credible sources that describe about the sighting in the '70s, especially in 1975. Jjok 00:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks?

Just a question for all who have been editing recently: it seems that all of you are active on the Liancourt Rocks article. Is this article going to become an outpost for the constant battle that's going on over there? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. One way to try to head this off is to be extra careful not to discuss the legitimacy of any action here, but instead just describe the actual events that had some effect or relate somehow to the seals themselves (i.e. when they were seen by who, etc.) —LactoseTI^T 16:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been contributing to this article long before the "other" article. I haven't edited the Dokdo article too much although rampant Japanese revisionist edits caught my attention and I plan to keep an eye on it from now on.melonbarmonster 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I see why you're saying this... didn't know the Japanese POV edits made to the text to turn this into another Liancourt/Koreans killed the sea lions thing. I love the new facts from Japanese articles but tweaking wording to undermine cause for extinction and attempting to blame Koreans for extinction, etc., stuff is ridiculous POV stuff that should not be dragged over here with a lame "Liancourt Rocks" subsection.melonbarmonster 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that the extinction of Dokdo sea lion occurred after the Korean occupation of the rocks of which Korean medias never mention (intentionally), while the existence after the San Francisco Treaty on the rocks was confirmed by Korean guards, Japanese fishermen, and American officials. Korean nationalist's site, dokdocenter even says the sea lion became extinct in 1940s probably affected by mislead Korean articles. It is clear that this article becomes heavily POVed if we use Korean sources without verification. Koreans want to think the extinction was not triggered by Korean even in a bit. Do you think Koreans do not have responsibility at all, Melonbarmonster?

I think all editors including JPOV editors feel that Japan has great responsibility for the extinction since Japanese did not take effective action and could not prevent the extinction of animals existed not only on the rocks but all over Japan. I think JPOV editors feel that Koreans should share the responsibility for the extinction of Dokdo sea lion based on the facts and this article should be described based on such facts, rather than just over-glorifying Korean recent efforts for the population revival that also has been discussed in Japan since early 90s. Jjok 23:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that we have multiple references from Korean and Japanese sources that give specific data that show sea lion fishery dying out in the 40's which is during Japanese occupation when all sea mammal goods were caught and shipped to Japan. As if the case in most cases, overfishing is what killed these animals. Liancourt rocks were one of many breeding grounds for these animals. Also remember that the last confirmed sighting was in Japan long after the Liancourt breeding population had been extinct.

Unfortunately, an animal species is extinct when the population falls below the minimum threshhold for a sustainable population. So even if there are stray animals and population living here and there, the species could be deemed extinct. Losing a tiny breeding ground doesn't cause distinction. Systemic habitat destruction and prolonged overfishing is what causes extinctions.

Let's cut the POV stuff people. It's really getting pathetic.melonbarmonster 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

More Added References

Tried to take all the references that were added by jjok and tried to incorporate them into references we have already without the POV spin. Headings that have no text to them yet have been deleted. We can add those sections later when we have text to put under them. Extinction heading should be left alone and not changed to "liancourt rocks" as if to imply that's where they became extinct since the last confirmed report was in Japan mind you.

These new Japanese references are great! But I do not appreciate deceptive POV manipulations to my previous edits such as changing commercial fishing causing sea lions to become "became extinct" to "likely cause extinction", etc..melonbarmonster 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt rocks section is necessary since the data coming from Korean source is basically based on the documents from Shimane prefecture and only described the figures relevant to the rocks, means, Japanese captured more and it is misleading without specification. Jjok 22:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't warrant a section entitled "Liancourt Rocks". Include that information within the extinction section without introducing POV pushing. Furthermore, you made edits to my previous edits without explanation nor discussion in this talk page. I didn't revert your edits but took the effor to integrate your references to my last edit which you summarily reverted. I'm willing to discuss your disagreements with my edits but please don't revert. Thanks.

Lactose, the current attempt at searching and restoring sea lion populations is being done in Korean waters. Let's avoid the Sea of Japan/East Sea dispute into this.melonbarmonster 23:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

They were found in many regions, not just Liancourt. It makes sense to make a separate section for that since many references are specifically speaking about the lions from that area. I doubt that Korea is only interested in somehow caging the free swimming lions only in Korean territorial waters. As the reference (and common sense) states, just leaving it the general region is enough. —LactoseTI^T 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said they were found only on Liancourt. I never said Korea is going to cage the lions from swimming outside of Korea. I did state that the current effort at repopulation will be conducted in Korean waters. That's a fact referenced by 3 or 4 articles.melonbarmonster 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad writing

Some one who has little foundation in English gramar is adding a lot of text here. I suggest that person seek a fluent mentor. I'd be happy to help. --Kevin Murray 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your mentoring. By the way, what is the POV tag for? Jjok 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to clarify what we're trying to say in this passage: "The sea lions also inhabited coastal areas of the Japanese Archipelago from the south west (southern limit of the Sea of Japan): Nagasaki, southern limit of the Pacific Ocean: Miyazaki), to Hokkaidō, the Kuril islands, and southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula, and the Korean Peninsula up to Tumen River."

I found a source that says they also found in Kagoshima prefecture, the southernmost part of mainlands of Japan, and Tumen River is the northernmost end of Korea, the paragraph can be simplified without specification like:

"The sea lions also inhabited coastal areas of the mainlands of the Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula, the Kuril islands, and southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjok (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is some POV regarding responsibility for the extinction. --Kevin Murray 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Japanese POV pushers are bringing the Liancourt article crap into this article unfortunately. My edits at trying to revise have been reverted and I'm getting sick of this POV crap.melonbarmonster 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Californian Sea Lions" or "California Sea Lions"

==

Headline text

[[Media:Example.oggItalic text]] ==

"Californian Sea Lions" sounds wrong to me. I belive that it should be "California Sea Lions", at least that would be what we would say here in California. --Kevin Murray 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Repairs

Just opening up opportunity for discussion. SANE arguments and discussions please. No blind POV reverting please. Raise issues in the talk page and at the very least explain your edits if your going to make drastic edits or friggin reversions to my edits.

1. Habitat and range should state the habitat and range. If "Japanese archipelago" and "Korean peninsula" are apt descriptions and there is no need to specify Liancourt rocks or Ullungdo.

2. http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=461 was given as a reference to the text that Liancourt rocks and Ullungdo were the last confirmed breeding grounds for the sea lions. Checked the reference and it doesn't say that. Let me know if anyone can find anything in the reference that states this. If not, this is fraudulent referencing.

3. Food and Foraging Section deleted. No need to keep this in the text when there's no text. Whoever keeps on reverting this back it, just add it when you have some text. This isn't your personal article or work space!

4. Liancourt rocks section and extinction section combined. Please don't take text and references I added and manipulate POV BS. At least discuss your issues or propose edit changes in the talk page and not engage in blind reverting please. First, the references show that the last confirmed COLONY was at Liancourt rocks in the 50's NOT the 70's! The last confirmed specimen was in Japan in 74 in Hokkaido. Second, why was the text referenced from the IUCN list deleted???? Let's keep this in.melonbarmonster 17:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference is for gajido, one of sea lion/seal-related place names in Korea. Jjok 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand your English too well. But if I understand you right I think you're trying to say that Occidentalism reference talks about gajido. Again, you used that reference to support the claim that Dokdo was the last confirmed breeding ground. That is not true and your comment that the "reference is for gajido" doesn't shed any new light on this matter. Let me know if I missed the text in the reference that states that Dokdo was the last confirmed breeding ground. But from the facts we have so far, considering a juvenile was captured in Hokkaido in 74, such a claim seems impossible. Moreover there seems to be Japanese POV pushing going on here to shift the blame of extinction to Koreans and we don't need that Japan vs Korea POV pushing here.melonbarmonster 04:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Sea Lion

Many of references of Japanese Sea Lion were "Not Found. "Therefore, I replaced it with . What is my problem?

Reference to be dead

• 환경부 [정보마당]　http://www.me.go.kr/dev/openpds/openpds_view.jsp?dept=&depart_code=&key=&search=&gubun=&idx=14450
• http://kuki1.stoo.com/news/html/000/462/827.html
• 일일 데이터 전송량 초과안내　http://dokdocenter.org/dokdo_news/index.cgi?action=detail&number=2599&thread=18r04r03
• http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=374380006

--Eichikiyama (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you deleted information, not just only tagging . Your deletion campaign over many articles are also to show your behaviors. The first one is not dead. You're not reading the page carefully. That is an attached file. The third one is also not dead one "the Korean language you pasted says "Notice for exceeding data transmission today" which means, that is temporary. So your allege for "there is no source" is not even true. You have to carefully write down what you're going to edit like "the link is dead".--Caspian blue (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, the kukinews content has been archived by several reliable sites such as Korean Coast Guard, one of Korean navy. So I hope you do not complain about the replacement. So the only dead one is the source from Japanese one.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Fishery

This entire section is extremely problematic. It reaks of Japanese whitewashing and little regarding the sea lion population.

Here are the main claims of the text: 1. Nakai Yōzaburō built a fishery house on the uninhabited Liancourt Rocks to aid in harvesting sea lions 2. Hunting of sea lions in this location was subject to government approval. 3. Former fisherman of the Oki Islands stated that they worked to protect the sea lion population to ensure perpetuity of the resource before WWII.

The ONLY reference given to back up these claims is http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/incorporation.html

However the given reference makes no mention of fishery house, hunting being subject to government approval, and no mention of working to preserve resources into perpetuity. The reference doesn't make ANY mention of these statements.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural habitat in the Sea of Japan

It is difficult to see what should be problematic about the phrase "natural habitat in the Sea of Japan"? The quoted web site is properly cited, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's problematic because it's false for one. The reference states that the reintroduction being carried out by Korea, China and Russia in the sea lion's natural habitat which includes bodies of water beyond the Sea of Japan.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)