Talk:Noktundo

In article present only korean POV on claimed, disputable territory, and no other side - Russia POV on this disputable area. Yes Noktundo exist but in russian map 19 century Noktundo is now Big Island DPRK territory. Kun Som https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kun-som/@42.3014425,130.6615769,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x5fb5ed816b0e5bf3:0xbd841471f68297e2 46.183.6.170 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I doubt Russians even know what Noktundo is. --208.72.125.2 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If this island for some reason no longer exists, then a statement to that effect should be included with some explanation.

Philologick (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have merged into the peninsula when the waterway changed. Keep in mind only a few hundred million years ago the continents and oceans were vastly different compared to today. So it makes sense a few hundred years could result in a lot of changes to a river and small islands like Noktundo.

204.197.177.22 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What evidence is there Noktundo ever existed? Is there any map of it in the past?

136.143.222.154 (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost definitely real; google images "녹둔도 지도". At the very least it seems a very plausible situation; the area is loamy and has lots of islands that appear and disappear. Related, this property of the islands caused border disputes between China and North Korea in the Sino-Korean Border Agreement toobigtokale (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In any event, it's unimaginable it was 32 square kilometers which would make it a huge island in such a small river. Where does the 32 square kilometer figure come from? 69.166.119.181 (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't spot that detail; I don't know much on the topic and probably won't get around to looking it up, have some other stuff I'm working on. It's a good question though toobigtokale (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/136.143.218.177

Special:Contributions/162.221.124.31

Special:Contributions/216.165.208.92

Special:Contributions/216.165.208.163

Special:Contributions/172.98.156.47

Special:Contributions/136.143.217.225

Special:Contributions/66.22.174.209

I am putting this down for reference as I look into this more, but I identified these 7 accounts that all share similaries with a total focus on Noktundo as well as trying to get it deleted across multiple pages.

They are focusing on Convention of Peking, Noktundo, Talk:List of territorial disputes, etc. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.166.119.181

Special:Contributions/136.143.222.154

Also more IP accounts? This is very suspicious given just how many IP accounts say almost the exact same topics (that Noktundo is under water, some of them also comment on Bakhmut which is a strange and doesnt appear to be a coincidence?) I am looking into this more Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Materialscientist could you please protect List of territorial disputes? User has reversed our edits and has spammed the Talk with Noktundo multiple times using different IPs

Also a longer term protection might be needed, given this user's multi-month long dedication to deletion. I will keep this page on a watchlist though to be safe Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am issuing this warning to you, if you continue with this vandalism and blatant racism, describing Koreans and Chinese as "backwards" along with a serious number of other degrading statements you have made scattered all across the page, I will take action. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In the article, the area is given as 3.2 sq km. In the book, the area is given as 32 sq km, 10 times the area given in the article. This is too much discrepancy.

source of the book: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Making_Borders_in_Modern_East_Asia/xJheDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=noktundo+32+square&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover

206.176.150.247 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Could be that the source you provided is wrong, can you provide several reliable sources supporting your claim? (have a careful read through that reliable sources page; I believe the book you cited falls into the category of "self-published sources") — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The book is published by Cambridge University Press and the author is a history professor at the University of Maryland. The claim for 3.2 sq km is a dead link to an unprotected site. I would replace the info. Qiushufang (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the dead 3.2 km² reference, a link to an archive of the website has been added. I think it's a legitimate reliable source. Just because it's a dead URL doesn't mean we should discard it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Whoever put the 3.2 got it wrong then because the link says 32 sq km. Fixed it. Given equal reliability, EN Wiki prefers English sources anyways so I would add the new source as well for better verifiability. Qiushufang (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, I noticed that as well. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of the article states "In 1990, Soviet Union and North Korea signed a border treaty which made the border run through the center of the river leaving the territory of the former island on the Russian side. South Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty and demanded that Russia return the territory to Korea."

It should be clarified in the article this is the point of view of certain activists in South Korea, not the point of view of the South Korean government. According to the linked youtube video, the South Korean government has never demanded the return of Noktundo from Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0t3ZugfBtg

136.143.222.130 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You're source is a youtube video. That is not a reliable Wikipedia source

Also you continue to not address the ANI notice that was sent to you weeks ago, your sole response was insulting users

If you genuinely wanted to bring about change for a good reason in Wikipedia I would be open to it, but you have damaged any credibility you were hoping to have for your position when you first tried to delete Noktundo off various wikipedia pages and then spammed the talk page at least 20+ times by now with topics, without any sources until yesterday. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for any misconduct I may have had. This article stated there is territorial dispute between South Korea and Russia regarding Noktundo. This is never reported anywhere. There has never been a single source stating the South Korean government demanded the return of Noktundo. While it is true there are certain activists in South Korea who demand this, there are also North Korean activists who also do so. The actions of activists does not make a territory disputed. It is only so if it occurs at the government level. Activists in every country demand return of some land in some other country. Every country used to have land that is now in some other country. This does not mean all those territories are disputed. I got confused by this article and thought the South Korean government had demanded Noktundo returned from Russia, which is clearly not so. I have done more research on the subject of Noktundo over the past few weeks and now I have a good understanding of what is going on. As someone who is not Korean, it can be quite confusing as I do not know much about Korean history and society. Once again, I apologize for any misbehavior I may have had. No need to get mad and let us let bygones be bygones. I do wish to continue to contribute my knowledge on wikipedia. No harm, no foul. Cheers.

Regarding the sentence in the article "South Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty and demanded that Russia return the territory to Korea.", I would suggest rewording it as "Certain activists in Korea refused to acknowledge the treaty and demanded that Russia return the territory to Korea." so as not to cause confusion, because the way it is worded implies the demand occurs at the government level, which is not the case. Rewording the sentence like so also emphasizes the fact the demand is from activists in both North Korea and South Korea, and not only from activists in South Korea. Otherwise, it would sound very weird and people will think it must be the doing of the US rather than Koreans because the sentence implies North Koreans don't care about Noktundo and only South Koreans care about Noktundo.

It is also unclear in the sentence how Noktundo can be returned to Korea. Considering North Korea and Russia have a border treaty and South Korea does not, this would imply Noktundo can be part of South Korea as a square box of exactly 32 sq km as an enclave inside Primorye near the Tumen river, and not as part of North Korea. This article should also make a clarification about this.

It would be good if this article can expand a bit on the issues regarding this sentence in the article. Just my two cents.

206.176.150.247 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a territorial dispute between the governments South Korea and Russia, there are multiple sources both in the page and elsewhere that all state this. While yes, there are certain activists who care about this more than the South Korean Government, the South Korean government did issue its claim over the territory in 1990. It has been relatively muted since, in that it has neither retracted the claim nor pushed it actively like it does over the Liancourt Islands.

https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/1VDYZQNO1P in 1990, the South Korean government demanded the return of Noktundo (this was after North Korea and Russia negotiated, with North Korea agreeing to recognize Russian sovereignty over Noktundo), the key thing to note was that as other sources in the article pointed out, they demanded it be returned to North Korean jurisdiction.

https://news.koreadaily.com/2019/05/08/society/opinion/7223417.html "In 1990, President Noh asked for the return of the island, even offering a two million dollar compensation to Russia"

The relative small number of articles on this issue suggests Koreans and Russians don't really care about Noktundo that much, and polling suggests that most Koreans and Russians do not dislike each other https://tass.com/society/1662407?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com Regardless, there is an existence of a dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation on a government level, it would be factually incorrect to suggest otherwise. While the dispute itself is not anywhere near comparable to territorial disputes over other areas (Russia and Japan over Kurils for example), it does exist on a government level. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose Noktundo can be returned to South Korea if Russians draw a perfect square box of exactly 32 sq km somewhere in Primorsky krai not too far from the river and give it to South Korea as an enclave in Primorsky krai. Upon examining the geography of the area on google map, such a square box won't fit a place in Primorksy krai close enough to the river to be able to cover the place where the island used to be. The perfect square box will have to be quite a bit further up towards Vladivostok, maybe about 8 km from the river rather than right next to the river where the island used to be. Just my 2 cents.

Of course, it is more likely Russians give 32 sq km to South Korea to improve relations if Russians can recapture all of Donbas area. It would be a massive net gain for Russians and they wouldn't mind sparing a 32 sq km enclave in Primorsky krai to improve relations with South Korea. Again, just my 2 cents. 136.143.222.130 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to clarify here since you might be misunderstanding, never have I nor any of my fellow editors who edited on this topic ever said Russia should actually return Noktundo to South Korea or commented on who the land should belong to, and again the South Korean Government's position was that it wanted it returned to North Korean jurisdiction, not its own jurisdiction. I believe you are commenting with the notion that any of the editors here actually want the two Koreas to gain the territory, that is not the point, the reason behind these edits and discussions on the page was because there is a territorial dispute between the two countries, the existence of which has been verified.

I don't see how Donbas is really relevant here, the Russo-Ukraine War isn't tied into Noktundo at all, regardless of which side wins, given that neither of the two Koreas nor Russia show any indication of using force to fight over Noktundo, given how little importance it is to either country. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not Russia's fault Russia does not give Noktundo to North Korea. Noktundo does not exist. Russia cannot give something that does not exist to North Korea. If Noktundo exists, sure, no problem, Russia give it to North Korea. Case in point, in 2004 Russia gave hundreds of sq km of islands in Amur river to China. By comparison, Noktundo was only 32 sq km, far smaller than what Russia gave to China in 2004. Link: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2018/11/02/two-countries-one-island

It is possible South Koreans do not realize the northern arm of Noktundo dried up and Noktundo hasn't existed for centuries. In any event, it's not so hard to look up google map and see there is no island there.

IMO the dispute should be considered resolved. When North Korea and Russia were negotiating their border treaty in 1985, South Korea demanded Russia give Noktundo to North Korea, which of course was not possible because Noktundo does not exist. Now that there is border treaty between North Korea and Russia, Noktundo should be a non issue and should not be considered a territorial dispute. The fact that no South Korean president ever brought up the issue of Noktundo since the 1980s demonstrates the fact Noktundo is not an issue anymore. 136.143.222.130 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

See this is what I am referring to, you are seeing this as a "Russia versus Korea" conflict within your editing. No one here is blaming Russia for "not giving Noktundo to North Korea" and you have gone back to claiming that Noktundo does not exist as well as creating a new topic again rather than just continuing discussion on our current discussion topic here. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

An advice I have for you, anonymous editor, is have a careful read through Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the "editing own comments" section. I would try to avoid editing your comments excessively as well as not edit them if it's been more than an hour since you posted the original comment. Otherwise, if you're editing your comment while someone is responding to it, they might not see the edits at all while they're responding. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how Noktundo can possibly exist. As Trump said, nothing can exist without borders. Notundo's border was determined by the two arms of the river. Without the northern arm, Noktundo has no border. No border means it does not exist. How can you possibly say Noktundo exists without borders? It makes no sense at all. Perhaps this is a fundamental difference between Western people thinking and Eastern people thinking. Koreans may think Noktundo exists without borders. To Russians, the existence of Noktundo without borders is ridiculous. To Russians and in general people educated in the West, Noktundo does not exist without borders.

Every territorial dispute in the world has well defined borders. Case in point, the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana is defined by a river. Noktundo has no border, so in my mind it cannot be a territorial dispute.

As another example. Iturup island is a territory dispute between Russia and Japan. But if Iturup goes under water when sea level rises, then it ceases to exist and there is no more dispute. As an another example, suppose Atlantis was an island that went under water when Ice Age ended and sea level rose, we do not say Atlantis still exists. So here in the West, we cannot say Noktundo exists if either 1) it went under water when Little Ice Age ended and sea level rose in the 1800s or 2) the northern arm of the river dried up and it lost its border. You see what I mean? 162.221.123.225 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

See it's really hard to engage with you when you quote Trump out of context (I am sure if that context was given, it likely was referring to something about illegal immigration, not territorial disputes) and state this. The article itself mentions that Noktundo had at one point merged with the mainland due to changing sea levels, that doesn't mean the island "stopped existing" it simply means that the border that marked it changed. That would have triggered a whole likely border dispute but that doesn't mean that automatically that the country that the island gets connected to now has territorial rights over it.

It is entirely possible for countries to have disputse over islands that sink under water and then reemerge, this is actually a very common issue that countries deal with. It doesn't mean that the issue goes away, because there are things such as maritime law and EEZs where the countries try to claim from using the islands.

This isn't an "East vs West" this is just seeing how maritime law as well as how islands work, and again you have changed your argument from initially stating that Noktundo just "did not exist" saying it "sank" to only now adding the border argument, which even though it is true, still doesn't mean that Noktundo automatically gets transfered to Russian sovereignty. And again, you are doing a very strong POV push stating that it should be under Russian sovereignty when the whole point of the Wikipedia article is to just state that the issue exists rather than say who is "right" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No source ever states with certainty or proves Noktundo is indeed in Primorsky krai. It may or may not be. It might be in North Korea. It might even be under water. Lord knows what happened to it. There is no proof the northern arm of the river dried up. It might have been the southern arm of the river dried up. It might have been the island went under water in the 1800s when Little Ice Age ended and sea level rose.

In 1985 South Korea demanded Russia give Noktundo to North Korea when Russia and North Korea were negotiating their border treaty. At that time, Russia had not recognized South Korea and had no diplomatic relation with South Korea. In 1990 Gorbachev recognized South Korea and established diplomatic relation with South Korea. Since that time, no South Korean president has ever brought up Noktundo. So it seems to me Noktundo was a ploy by South Korea in the 1980s to cause friction between Russia and North Korea, rather than a genuine concern for Korean history.

Think about it, no country has ever demanded land from some country on behalf of some other country, especially not for a country it is still at war with. South Korea and North Korea are two completely different countries. There are also many Spanish speaking countries, many Arab speaking countries, hell, there's even four German speaking countries Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Germany. There's nothing common between South Korea and North Korea other than they both speak Korean. Not to mention they don't have diplomatic relation and are technically at war without a border treaty. Just my 2 cents. 162.221.123.225 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any further engagement will be productive, you again have said that Noktundo "may or may not be in Primorsky Krai" even though earlier you said in your argument that because the water between Noktundo and Primorsky Krai dried up that it belonged to Russia. You brought up your argument again that Noktundo is under water, even though earlier we had just discussed that Noktundo existed. You can't just keep changing your argument, it's unreasonable to expect me to continue responding in good faith when you don't really respond to my claims and then keep shifting the points we are trying to discuss.

Again, that shows again that there is a government dispute, that South Korea demanded in 1985 that Noktundo be given to North Korea, and also a government does not have to recognize a government for there to be an official dispute. Neither of the two Koreas recognizes each other yet there is a territorial dispute over who owns Korea. And then President Roh brought it up again in 1990 (after official relations were established). South Korea's government is not pushing the claim aggressively, but they haven't retracted it either, so the dispute does exist. And this isn't even touching on that you are doing a very, very strong POV push. Not once has anyone here argued that Noktundo should be Russian, Korean, etc, simply that the dispute exists. We have evidence that said dispute exists, the point of the article is to simply acknowledge it, and not say "which side is right"

And saying that there's nothing common between the North and South is not true, they share the same language, culture, ethnicity, as well as belief in nationhood given the two still continue to refuse to recognize the other on the basis that there is only "one Korea". Anyhow, I don't think any further discussion is going to be productive as we have concrete evidence that the island is territorially disputed and hasn't been resolved by the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence Noktundo is in Primorksy krai. The Russians themselves do not believe so. I merely stated a possible theory it could be in Primorsky krai. A far more likely scenario is Noktundo sunk under water in the 1800s when Little Ice Age ended and sea level rose. Think about it. Considering the Red Sea, the Bering Strait, the English Channel which are far bigger than Noktundo were once land during Ice Age and sunk under water when Ice Age ended and sea level rose, what's the chance a tiny island like Noktundo didn't go under water when Little Ice Age ended? Tiny islands like Noktundo come and go all the time.

No South Korean president demanded Russia give Noktundo to North Korean since 1990 when Gorbachev recognized South Korea and established diplomatic relation. It's been more than 30 years. That's a long enough time frame to consider the dispute resolved between South Korea and Russia. South Korea needs to cultivate good relation with Russia to counter the influence of its enemy North Korea. So I don't think there is territorial dispute between South Korea and Russia in modern days. Just my 2 cents.

And even if the Korean theory is correct and the northern arm of the river dried up and Noktundo became part of the Primorsky krai peninsula at the south, the island does not exist. We cannot say the island still exists without the northern arm. So the point is moot. Even if this theory is correct, Russia cannot give something that does not exist. So I do not see there is territorial dispute between South Korea and Russia. You cannot dispute something that does not exist. Koreans may think things last forever. But here in the West there is an old saying. Nothing lasts forever. Not Noktundo. Not even the Sun. Not even this universe.162.221.123.225 (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources to support your claims?

Sunnyediting99 has already provided several sources in a previous reply above as proof that the South Korean government did demand Noktundo back from Russia. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

AP, I think the biggest difficulty here is that the above person has changed their argument. It's quite frankly impossible to talk with them, even if we disregard the previous vandalism + topic spamming + constant IP changes, solely on the point that the argument that they have pushed is ever changing.

The argument has been 1) Noktundo doesn't exist (using sea level arguments + river arguments, which can be disproven by the fact that we have geographical knowledge right now that the island does exist and multiple sources all saying the island exists)

2) that even if Noktundo exists, that South Korea doesn't claim it and that no South Korean President has claimed it (which is false, South Korea made the claim in 1985, and then again in 1990 when relations with Russia were established)

3) Even if South Korea does have a claim, that it doesn't "deserve" Noktundo and that South Korea plans to invade Russia (a very unreasonable claim given that no one is actually arguing who the island should belong to, just that there is a dispute between the two countries).

So it's "Noktundo doesn't exist because it sank into the sea/the river dried up merging the land, but if it does exist, then South Korea doesn't claim it and there isn't a dispute, and even if there is a dispute, then Russia deserves the land and the article should delete all and any mentions of the dispute" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Come on. Use your common sense. The last time a South Korean president demanding Notundo from Russia for North Korea was decades ago. More than 30 years ago. That's way too long ago to have any relevance today. Today South Korea needs to cultivate good relation with Russia to counter North Korea's influence on Russia. So South Korean president does not and will not demand Noktundo from Russia for North Korea. The issue is over as far as I'm concerned.

Noktundo does not exist. Go take a look at google map of the Tumen delta area. You don't see a Noktundo. There is no Noktundo. Noktundo does not exist. Western people, including Russians, will never accept Noktundo ever existed. Western people only take it seriously if there is a historical map of Noktundo. There isn't one. So Russians do not believe Noktundo ever existed. Maybe a legend. But no map. So no proof.

My suggestion to you. Stop living in fantasy and start living in reality. Just my 2 cents.172.98.151.137 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)