Talk:Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conference photos needed[edit]

GNU licensed photos of the conferences held by the various Japan-Korea tunnel associations and study groups would be appreciated for use in this article. Can any news photographers or anyone who's attended the conferences assist? Please remember, when uploading, to provide as much date/time/place/names etc... info as possible. tnx HarryZilber (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article is not a new battleground[edit]

Wikipedians and others should respect that this is not the venue to discuss land claim disputes over the strait islands or past historical disputes. The page article is attempting to describe the proposed tunnel project, including its history, economics, advantages, engineering and societal effects, among other topics. Land claim disputes should be addressed as separate Wikipedia articles. Thanks. --HarryZilber (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relevant item removal[edit]

The statement 'some claim that Korea has governed (ref. the islets?) since the Silla dynasty' was removed from the Societal Difficulties section as the article describes a proposed tunnel project, which places land claims and counterclaims outside the article's scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryzilber (talk • contribs) 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal. I wonder about that whole section, too. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NihonJoe 日本穣: Regarding your preceding comment: many Western people, even those who have studied some world history, have scant knowledge of the invasion of Korea. Although I knew previously that Japan had occupied Korea during WWII, until I researched this article I never knew that Japan had occupied Korea as early as 1910. Thus it was felt necessary during the article creation to have some background info on societal relations between Korea and Japan to explain possible delays or cancellation of the project, as most Westerners wouldn't be cognizant of them.

May I ask a favour please NihonJoe? Since I don't have access to current information on new developments related to this proposed tunnel, and since there's significantly more information on the same article on the Japanese website, I'd appreciate if you could translate the updated and enhanced material from the Japanese article to the English one. Many thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryzilber (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search terms for the Japan-Korea tunnel[edit]

Here's a partial list of equivalent and alternate expressions for the 'Japan-Korea undersea tunnel' that can be used when searching further information and updates:

Obvious:

  • Korea-Japan undersea tunnel
  • ROK-Japan undersea tunnel
  • Japan-ROK undersea tunnel

Others terms related to undersea tunnel:

  • submarine tunnel (submarine being a common term in other Latin based languages)
  • under the ocean tunnel
  • bottom of the ocean tunnel
  • sea-bottom tunnel
  • peace tunnel
  • rail/train tunnel to: Korea/Japan/ROK/South Korea
  • 'undersea train'; this nounal phrase suggests a submersible train travelling thru water, which is definitely not the case; however at least one article referring to the tunnel that way was found, and which attests to the difficulties of those writing in their non-mother tongue.

etc...

Tunnel translations:

Translations for reference and research include:

  • Korea-Japan Sea Bottom Tunnel
  • Nikkan Tonneru
  • Túnel Japón-Corea
  • Japan-Koreatunnel
  • Japan-Korea Tunnelen
  • Tunnel du Japon-Corée
  • Giappone-Corea Del Tunnel Sottomarino
  • Япония-Корея подводный тоннель
  • Japon-Corée Tunnel Sous-Marin

--HarryZilber (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sample name translations[edit]

Note that the naming convention used for this article is the nominal placement of the project partners by order of the size of their economies (e.g., Japan-Korea). Notwithstanding that convention, each name translation can be used in reverse order (e.g., Korea-Japan). The three proposed side-by-side tunnels, as contemplated in 2007, both start and stop at each country.

Translations for reference and research include: Japan-Korea Sea Bottom Tunnel, Underwater Train Tunnel, Nikkan Tonneru, Túnel Japón-Corea, Japan-Koreatunnel, Japan-Korea Tunnelen, Tunnel du Japon-Corée, Giappone-Corea Del Tunnel Sottomarino, Япония-Корея подводный тоннель, Japon-Corée Tunnel Sous-Marin.

The project's various name modifiers '...Undersea', '...Submarine', '...Sea Bottom', etc... have also occasionally been substituted with 'Peace', 'Friendship' and 'Rail', as in '....Peace Tunnel', '....Rail Tunnel', etc....

New and expanded sections needed[edit]

To make this a more useful article, significant amounts of research materials in Japanese and Korean are available and can be utilized. Consider expanding the article with detailed sections covering:

  • very early proposal history in the late nineteenth century;
  • notable proponents in the past and present;
  • relationship of the tunnel to the overall rail infrastructure in East Asia;
  • alternates to this project, via Sakhalin Island to Europe, since the project may not be financially viable without transit thru North Korea to China and then on to Siberia and Europe;
  • detailed projections analysis of the economic impacts once constructed and placed in use
  • Engineering details and potential issues, such as earthquakeproofing and ventilation;
  • security and safety;
  • a detailed section on efforts by noted tunnel proponent, South Korea's Sun Myung Moon, the Korean founder and leader of the world-wide Unification Church. Moon proposed a 'Great Asian Highway' as far back as 1981, and helped establish the International Highway Construction Corporation (IHCC) to build it. Moon's organizations actually financed and conducted extensive amounts of research, including pilot tunnels, for the project, and there's copious materials available on the internet, albeit mostly in Korean.

--updated HarryZilber (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Eurotunnel" vs. "Channel Tunnel"[edit]

78.133.71.148s edits have been reverted, where he/she removed the use of "Eurotunnel" (as referring to the tunnel structure in the article) since that name is now synonymous with "Channel Tunnel". The fact that the tunnel structure is officially named the "Channel Tunnel" was noted with the first instance of the Eurotunnel's moniker's use. Here are the supporting facts on the popular usage of Eurotunnel:

  • typical media news stories now employ Eurotunnel when referring to the tunnel structure, in addition to its operating company. Examples can be seen here and here ;
  • Eurotunnel is referenced about 815,000 times on a simple Google check, compared to about 618,000 occurrences for "Channel Tunnel", where the use of Eurotunnel has become synonymous for both the tunnel structure and its operating company, and even now also refers to the trains using the tunnel, as in: ".....take the Eurotunnel to Prague" (clearly the tunnel structure and its operating company do not travel to Prague)
  • at least two popular online dictionaries refer to "Eurotunnel" as the tunnel structure, with no mention of its operating company.

Since Wikipedia needs to convey popular names in addition to their 'official names' so its readers can gain information that's both useful and accurate, I've reverted "Channel Tunnel" back to "Eurotunnel", also reinstating the notes that equate the two.

HarryZilber (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of quotations[edit]

Harryzilber stated in a comment line: "Note: different font styles for passages of quoted text are optional per editor's discretion -numerous examples are found throughout Wikipedia. It helps delinate the quoations better than a single font."

Different font styles for quoted text are not optional per editor's discretion.

Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Italics_and_quotations says, unequivocally,

Quotations in italics
"For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting."

The fact that many editors use italicization incorrectly does not make it an optional style, only an incorrect one. Many editors use "Title Case" sor sub-headings within articles instead of WP:MOS's preference for "sentence case". That does not make it a correct style, but rather an inconsistent style that should be corrected to give Wikipedia a more standard appearance, and to help readers find their way through articles.

If you disagree with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you can propose a change on the appropriate talk page, e.g., on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, but until you convince other Wikipedians that the Wikipedia style should be changed, please do not impose your own style on articles. Doing so just leads to edit wars, which we all want to avoid. Thanks.

Also, organization names are not italicized. Book titles, movie titles, TV show titles, and foreign words and phrases are italicized. I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ground Zero: thanks for your dutiful cleanup of my article; I have to admit to being italic-illiterate (sounds like I can't speak Italian) and gratuitous in my use of them on past occasions; I've now been somewhat humbled, MOSed and updated on their use. Just to mention that the edit summary you quoted me on was somewhat truncated when I wrote it (due to a pressing deadline of other issues); I actually meant to say (typos now also corrected):
"different fontface styles for passages of quoted text are optional per editor's discretion -numerous examples are found throughout Wikipedia. It helps delineate the quotations better than a single fontface."
That was in reference to the two blockquotes within the article that another editor had twice previously changed from Teletype font to Ariel font. In fact I've never seen any MOS rules restricting the use of fontfaces (or typefaces). I generally prefer them when quoting other people's works at length, since anyone scanning the article can easily pick out that the blockquote of text was pulled from another document, since it looks like typewritten text, as in:
Professor Hur Jae-wan of Seoul's Chung-Ang University said that for the tunnel to become politically viable it would be essential for the project to gain significant support from both country's citizenry, because:
"The Japanese hold a xenophobic nationalism that they are different from other Asian countries. The South Koreans, in contrast, believe they were victimized by the Japanese and harbor suspicion about Japan's expansionism and think the tunnel might lead the South Korean economy and culture to be absorbed into Japan's."
In the mid-2000s, disputes over history, territory and policies aimed at North Korea had brought the two country's relations to a low point.....
vs:
Professor Hur Jae-wan of Seoul's Chung-Ang University said that for the tunnel to become politically viable it would be essential for the project to gain significant support from both country's citizenry, because:
"The Japanese hold a xenophobic nationalism that they are different from other Asian countries. The South Koreans, in contrast, believe they were victimized by the Japanese and harbor suspicion about Japan's expansionism and think the tunnel might lead the South Korean economy and culture to be absorbed into Japan's."
In the mid-2000s, disputes over history, territory and policies aimed at North Korea had brought the two country's relations to a low point.......
It's a minor, but subtle, but important difference that I appreciate seeing when reading others works at lenght, so I'm usually inclined to follow it as well when I have the extra time to do so. Oh, b.t.w., I had to use some of your commas to do this response —just send the bill...... Ciao HarryZilber (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I too enjoy a visual change for chunks of quoted material but rather than using "<tt>" the MoS seems to encourage the "<blockquote>" tag. It may also to beneficial to include the author directly after the quote.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Depth[edit]

How deep is the water between the various countries and islands?

Tabletop (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source[edit]

The article currently includes:

:The economics seem to be there. Given the cost of sending a container around the Horn, and with many container ships now so large they won't fit through Suez, sending the same container by rail can be economical, with the right types of goods, things that are too urgent for ships but too expensive for airfreight.[1]

Which is unexpected; the world's largest containerships regularly transit Suez[1], and these vessels have much larger capacity than when Stonewell wrote. Do any containerships - either now, or in construction, or back in 2000 - have a draft greater than 19m or airdraft greater than 68m? Since the writer is not an economist and appears to make wildly counterfactual claims about container shipping, I think they should not be used as a source on the economics of container shipping. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, if any source claims that "that shipments from Japan to Europe, via the Eurasian Land Bridge, could arrive with two days of travel time" then the source is perhaps not familiar with the reality of rail transport across Asia. The last time I travelled by rail from between western Europe to Hong Kong, it took 2 weeks, including express trains, although I didn't have the pleasure of transiting North Korea. Has North Korea recently lifted border restrictions and built a high speed rail network? bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just did some maths. A great circle from Busan to Berlin is 8470km (a real-world route would be much longer than a great circle, of course). Let's generously allow the whole 48 hours for the journey. Let's also make the wildly optimistic assumption that the train makes no stops for borders, that there are no stops to change locomotives or drivers, and that there are no chokepoints or slow bits of infrastructure. And let's pretend that transport between Japan and Korea takes a negligible time. Even with those assumptions, a freight train would have to average 176 km/h.
These bits of the article are so far out of touch with reality that I think they're best removed altogether. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobrayner: the Stonehill paragraph you removed dated from 2000 was probably written a year or two earlier than that, and appears to have been accurate at that time. According to the WP article on Suezmax shipping: "Currently, the canal is [now] being deepened from 18 to 20 m (59.1 to 65.6 ft)"; and it may have also been shallower than 18m prior to 1998-1999, which accounts for his explanation. That said, the paragraph now appears dated, and should either continue to be left out or rewritten to reflect the new operational reality of the Suez, even though there are still Capesized vessels which still can't use the canal.
While your math on the great circle route from Japan to the U.K. is commendable, it appears premature to remove reference to the KoreaTimes article referring to the 2002 study. The paragraph was non-specific as to when such two day service could be accomplished. If the 2002 study was referring to proposed service to be offered 20-30 years from now, North Korea and China notwithstanding, its entirely possible that high speed rail would be feasible between the continents. Wikipedia, as others have pointed out, is not a crystal ball, and O.R. can't be used to invalidate material quoted in reliable sources. While the KoreaTimes is not well known in Western countries, it would be inaccurate to categorize them as unreliable. Only 40 years ago people would probably have looked askance if you told them that 2.5 hr. London-Paris train service was on the horizon –technology improvements combined with the political will to provide it put that to rest, and its entirely possible to also apply that to the Tokyo-London route. Regarding the intransigence of North Korea, China, early this year proposed a similar undersea tunnel between South Korea and their adjoining province, which would thus bypass Pyongyang. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have revised/reinstated the deleted material as discussed above, as well as reinstating the popular alternate name of the Channel Tunnel as discussed in a previous section above. The dated reference to the Suez Canal has been revised to note the impact of its deepening on the Japan-to-Europe link's feasability. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the "discussion" above justify the reinsertion of technically implausible claims based on discredited articles?
And why revert to wider use of the wrong name for the channel tunnel? I'm happy to see one or two uses of "eurotunnel" - perhaps near the start - to clarify for any readers who had somehow learned the wrong name before arriving here - much as tsunami mentions and clarifies "tidal wave" at the start but subsequently uses the term "tsunami" - but that doesn't justify wholesale reversion of several subsequent cases where I replaced the wrong name with the right name.
It's also severely one-sided to base transport predictions on an assumption that there will be gigantic advances in rail transport (including such fantasies as a rail tunnel bypassing North Korea) whilst making no mention of possible advances in other modes. That OR analysis conspicuously omits the competitive pressures of supersonic zeppelins, intercontinental hovercraft, and matter teleporters, all of which are things that might possibly happen in the future. ;-)
To revert to your preferred version of text even when it's been explicitly falsified seems to be rather unproductive. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, first off, Happy New Year! Second, the lack of reply to my prior post two weeks ago gave the impression that you were not going to refute the points mentioned. Third, lets discuss this on the major points that are contentious so that valid material can be restored, since you did a complete revert on both contentious and non-contentious material. I don't usually get into edit wars, but I need some cooperation in assessing what makes the best editorial material for an article:

Likely non-contentious
  1. The inclusion of the Suez quote from Stonehill revised to show it was written late 20th Century and then updated with the facts on the Suez's deepening;
  2. The 2011 KTI study material just published in the media yesterday and backed up by a reliable source.
Likely contentious
  1. Statement that "that shipments from Japan to Europe, via the Eurasian Land Bridge, could arrive with two days of travel time". Since you've discussed that in detail above, I'm pretty sure you were referring to this when your edit summary spoke of fiction ;
  2. 'Channel Tunnel' and 'Eurotunnel' combined use, which has been discussed above this section and previously accepted by several others at various times if you check the page history.

Kindly reply if this is correct, and if so then the non-contentious items can be restored and we can review what's acceptable vis-a-vis good editorial writing combined with the MOS guidelines/policies. Thanks. HarryZilber (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehill was wrong at the time, and wrong now. Tweaking the wording doesn't help; the source is still counterfactual. We can forgive the writer as they don't seem to be a professional in either containershipping or economics, but we shouldn't lean on such sources. The Suez canal at the time had a usable draft of 62 feet; even the largest containerships on the drawing board today (double the capacity of those plying the seas when the text was written) draw 48 feet. I'm not sure why such a source gets re-added - is there some other reason to rely on it? bobrayner (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stonehill, Bill (2000) Eyes on Japan: The Iron 'Silk Road', updated 2008-12-31, retrieved 2009-04-03.

Comparison to the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel[edit]

The "Comparison to the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel" section seems to be almost completely based on Nozawa / Chun's comments, even though there are plenty of sources in the UK and mainland Europe - including some from transport agencies &c and some which have quantified the effects of the tunnel. Perhaps a more neutral tone might be obtained by drawing on other sources? bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't see the point of this section - making subjective observations about the Channel Tunnel changing people's perceptions about Anglo-French relations is not factually correct and sounds more like media spin on the existence of the tunnel. As a Francophile Englishman, I don't think the Tunnel has made any difference to people's views on the French here in the UK. 95.172.74.60 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan–Korea_Undersea_Tunnel&oldid=1207795691"