Talk:Northern Limit Line

message: The article is missing information about the alternative sea border proposed by the north. Arn't there any? -- iGEL (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself does not give much information about it, but it does link to a KCNA article (Google cache of English article · Google cache of the same article in Korean) that has all the details.  While I haven't searched for maps, there's one here and another one at 0:27 in this video. HTH, schönen Gruß, Wikipeditor (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The red "B" line in the mapbox purports to show the "Inter-Korean MDL in the Yellow Sea" mentioned in the People's Daily article.  But where do we see the actual line set by DPRK?  With narrow two corridors leading north to the islands, the purported line does not make sense. We need a better WP:RS to establish the nK line. --S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading, "West Sea Military Demarcation Line" is the most common name for the DPRK line, though there is poor consistency. eg it is used once in the South Korean MOD justification document, along with "Chosun Sea Military Demarcation Line" and "West Sea Demarcation Line". I've never seen "Inter-Korean MDL" or "Inter-Korean Military Demarcation Line" anywhere but a couple of Chinese news articles. Of all these names, "West Sea Military Demarcation Line" gets the most google hits (767), and I'd suggest we try to use that name for the DPRK line consistently.  Rwendland (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the differences in naming are consistent with the dubious nature of the unilaterally-contrived line. This is one of the rare cases in which inconsistent naming is not a flaw; rather it is a fuzzy logic demonstration of academic credibility as defined by WP:V.  Do I need to explain this again in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have "Inter-Korean MDL" cited because it comes from an academic source -- http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf -- Professor Van Dyke et al.  Part of the confusion comes from how these terms are translated.  (And note we are referring to what (and how) the North Koreans called their line.) There are basically three ways we get the particular verbage -- 1. From a straight Korean Language statement by nK, which is then translated by a non-nK source; 2. From a North Korean source in Korean Language, which is then/also translated by the nK source; or 3. From an English Language statement by the nK.  Our WP:RS (Professor Van  Dyke) did not tell us how he got the particular language, but what he did say was particular enough to include in quotes as we present it.  The broader point is that the maritime demarcation line here is NOT a formal extension of the Military Demarcation Line. --S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline citation and note consistent with this discussion thread was added  here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The verifying citation from Maritime Policy journal was added to the Commons description page  here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which border does the north propose? 

message: The NLL is the division between the North Korean and South Korean crab fishing zones so despite whether the Cheonan was on an exercise or not, she was still within the disputed crab fishing zone when attacked. This page can be expanded. In fact, a new incident occured today or yesterday and I am about to add information baout it. So that is 3-1 in favor of not merging.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NO MERGE

message: Here we have 2 stub class, low importance articles that discuss the same overall topic -- tensions at sea between nK & sK. And then the Crab Wars article is essentially a listing of the skirmishes, but includes ROKS Cheonan sinking as a notable example of the incidents. (Even though it is not clear that Cheonan had anything to do with crab fishing.)  Instead of improving the articles or discussing the merits and dismerits of a merger, we have spats about how many votes there are one way or the other.  (And I suppose I'm to blame for this because I was too eager to count a vote in favor of my proposal!)  Let's look at the bigger picture and develop an article (one article) that puts these events into perspective.--S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to put is as simple as possible. The combatants do not have to be fishing for crab at the time of battle in order for the events to be considered part of the Crab wars. The incidents of the crab wars are just those fought along the NLL which is the boudry between the two crab fishing zones.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised the issue of what these articles are about on the other page, but I'll bring it up here. The title Crab Wars suggests a fishing dispute (like the British-Icelandic Cod War; if you are wanting a page detailing the border dispute between North and South Korea, it should (at the very least) be called that - "Border Incidents of (whatever)". As far as I can see there are two overlapping but distinct disputes here; a dispute over borders left over from the Korean War, which would be there whether there are fish in the sea or not, and a three-way dispute over fishing grounds, which would exist regardless of those countries recent history. And I  think the articles we have should reflect that, not lump everything in together. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Xyl 54 I have made this point on the Crab Wars discussion page but will repeat it here for completeness. I don't think this is comparable with the Cod Wars which related to the expansion of Iceland's exclusive economic zone into what were previously international waters. In contrast North and South Korean territorial waters butt up against each other along a maritime border (the NLL) that North Korea does not accept. Fishing is just part of the overall territorial dispute between North and South Korea. Sometimes the North Koreans use fishing boats to assert their rights to the area south of the NLL and sometimes they use gunboats or, as we saw yesterday, artillery. It is for these reasons (and others) that I support a merge of Crab Wars with the NLL page. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes Merge -- clear out the stubs!

message: User:Victor Victoria has now nominated Korean maritime border incidents for deletion, please add any comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean maritime border incidents Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: How can anyone think of merging this article at this time?  This is a major and unique world event.  If it was to be merged then people would look on Wikipedia for it and when they didn't see it they would start their own. --Andrewrutherford (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No merge with Shelling of Yeonpyeong 

message: It looks like the recent edit by Rwendland provide an analysis originally published by ROK.  Not that that's wrong, but it is unclear as to how far west the UNC intended the line to go when it was established back when.  That is, was the NLL originally intended to extend to the "median line between Korea and China"?  That takes the line out into international waters, which International Law would not recognize.  (E.g., ships could not "legally" cross the line if they were East of the Median Line.)  To recap, 1. The reference provided looks like an ex post facto justification by ROK to extend the NLL beyond what the UNC established. (The paper is quite technical.)  2. The edit is unclear because it implies that the line goes all the way out to the median line.  Otherwise, thanks for an excellent bit of work! --S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That highlights an important point that we should probably cover in the article. UNC and SK do not justify the NLL by ordinary peacetime maritime delineation law - it clearly is contrary to that. The SK rationale for the NLL is "military necessity" along with the claim that UNCLOS "recognizes such exceptional cases of military necessity." Also an argument that the situation is not governed by general maritime law, but by a spacial armistice agreement, so the NLL is a political compromise that should not be governed by the Law of the Sea; as advanced on pages 212-214 of . The UNC position seems a bit weaker a) "territorial jurisdiction remain in dispute", so this is not an ordinary peacetime situation yet, b) NLL is an "effective means of preventing military tension ... We urge the DPRK to recognize the practicality of the NLL by keeping its craft north of the line." As the NLL is not governed by ordinary international law, according to SK and UNC, there is no problem with the NLL being enforced at the western end beyond 12 miles, all the way out to where the Chinese EEZ starts. At some point we should try to refine that and get it into the article.  Rwendland (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western "end" of the line? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Northern Limit Line. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725020759/http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v27n2-f.pdf to http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v27n2-f.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309130908/http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf to http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/admin/yun_un/up_file/opr161-06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309130908/http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf to http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified