Talk:Military Demarcation Line

message: S. Rich -- Despite the clear points of agreement which are identified above, I respectfully disagree.
* General Usage. The fact-of-the-matter is that the MDL (as a proper noun) has come to be "mis-used" in a consistent manner over the course of the past fifty years.
* Published record. Many reliable sources publish the "mis-use" of this term in ways not intended by the 1953 treaty, e.g., Aigner, Erin and Haeoun Park. "Military Strike in the Waters Between North and South Korea," New York Times. November 23, 2010.
* Etymology. The history and evolutionary development of this "mis-use" is described, e.g., "Modern meaning of Korea’s maritime line," The Hankyoreh (ROK). October 15, 2007.
Frankly, I don't know how to evaluate good, better, best in this context; but enough red flags have been raised.  I feel justified asking questions to which I don't yet have good answers.
In other words, I feel justified in rejecting the otherwise plausible presumption that the ambit of this encyclopedia topic is limited by the text of the armistice in 1953.  
I feel justified in rejecting the POV that  anything subsequent to 1953 is off-topic; and that is the crux of this minor dispute.  
For redundant emphasis, ours is not a right-or-wrong, zero-sum game.  You are not incorrect.  The only problem is that if we edit the article on the basis of the POV you assert, the consequences make our article incomplete, insufficient, unhelpful in 2010.If we agree that you are not wrong, does it follow that I must be mistaken?  If so, please help me to recognize my error in judgment. --Tenmei (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for the complements.  POV is not on my mind when asking to limit the MDL material to land based incidents.  The maritime incidents are well covered in other articles, which MDL can refer to as SAs. WP:REDUNDANT is the guidance we should follow. (And I note "The Hankyoreh" article does not refer to the Military Demarcation Line as a proper noun -- it refers to a demarcation line; also, the Aigner, Erin and Haeoun Park article has a "Military Demarcation Line" designated on a map, which uses capital letters in the caption pointing to the line on the map.  But the piece does not discuss and extension of the Armistice Agreement MDL in the area, and which, as I have pointed out, has not been agreed to by the UNC and DPRK.)  Let's be clear and concise in our articles -- in this case we do so by avoiding WP:CHERRY.  Thanks again!--S. Rich (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I need time to ponder this.   In the meantime, the remaining sentences of this section are posted in the collapsed box below.  I will continue to reduce the numbers of words + citations in the meantime; and this becomes an implied invitation to assist me in the process of figuring out how to make this shorter. Over the coming months, others may join us in a process of sharpening the focus and the supporting citations of this section. --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-argument

message: S. Rich -- Responding to the second sentence of your diff  above, 
 "POV is not on my mind when asking to limit the MDL material to land based incidents"
The acronym "POV" is narrowly interpreted in the context of this thread.  The usage is very specific and explicitly defined, e.g., 
:S. Rich's "POV" in this article
: ≥  (greater than    or equal to)
* "... ambit of this encyclopedia topic was established, defined and limited by the text of the armistice in 1953; and anything subsequent is off-topic"
* " ... exclusionary conclusion follows logically from the definitional premises ... all parts of your reasoning are internally consistent ... re-reading the comparatively short armistice text enhances the clarity of your analysis"
* " ... anything subsequent to 1953 is off-topic ... the crux of this minor dispute"
Please note that I have highlighted these excerpts above in blue with a hyperlink to the initial diff.  The purpose is to make it easier to locate these excerpts in their original contexts.As a general rule, we recognize that "POV" has a negative connotation.  In other words, POV is most often used as a shorthand for identifying text as non-neutral.However, in this instance, the denotation of the acronym "POV" (point of view) is informed by very clear verifying citations.  In no sense do I argue that S. Rich's POV is non-neutral nor that it is not credible or not verifiable -- only that it is insufficient for our online encyclopedia context.  IMO, this is a fine point, a matter of judgment; and consensus has evolved since 1953.
;WP:RfC and WP:GA
There is a reason I have invested so much time in this trivial point. In mid-January, I propose to initiate an WP:Request for Comment (RfC) on this comparatively small article.  After that, I plan to initiate a WP:Good article review.  The fact of the matter is that this is a very good article, and the process may bring tangential benefit in those controversial articles which rely on delimitation boundaries as a fundamental concept.In other words, the process of parsing the distinction between the Korean Armistice Agreement term and the subsequently evolved trope may serve as a useful template for articles which are mired in seemingly intractable disputes? --Tenmei (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My contentions regarding POV deal with the desire to include recent incidents (shelling, ship sinking) in the article.  These events are properly covered in other articles.  But POV becomes an issue in this article because such incidents are not related to the DML, DMZ, JSA, or other KAA topics -- their inclusion here is POV because some people want to splash them all over the media & WP.  I suspect the reason is to make sure "The Forgotten War" continues on.  Their logic goes like this: KW ended in 53 with KAA; the KAA established the MDL; the MDL is a demarcation line; the MDL & DMZ divides the two Koreas; incidents continue to occur between the 2 Koreas along the DMZ/MDL. Then they add: the UNC established the NLL; the NLL is a demarcation line; the NLL divides the 2 Koreas; incidents continue to occur between the 2 Koreas along the NLL. Therefore the NLL is an extension of the MDL. Then they add: an armistice is a type of ceasefire; ceasefires do not (necessarily) end wars; the KAA, as an armistice, must have been a ceasefire; therefore the KW did not end because it was only a ceasefire.  From that logic it is easy to say that the incidents along the NLL are violations of the MDL, which in turn are violations of the KAA, which in turn means the KW continues on; the events in the Yellow Sea prove this; such events should be included in articles about the MDL.--S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view

message: Google news search for "sea military demarcation line" shows that conventional "misuse" in the popular press is a long-standing phenomenon.
:;1960s
*  "Two Killed In Sea Crash," St. Joseph Gazette (US). December 24, 1962; excerpt, "The gunboats clashed near Island in the Yellow Sea just south of the military demarcation line, the South Korean announcement said."
*  "Ships Trade Fire I With Reds," News And Courier (US). May 28, 1967; excerpt, "The shelling occurred near the military demarcation line separating North and South Korea.  A ROK spokesman said that ships were in the area to protect fishing boats."
:;1970s
* "Red Korea Seizes Boat, 20 Crewmen," Free Lance-Star (US). June 5, 1970; excerpt, "The general area is near the seaward extension of the military demarcation line that separates South Korea from the Communist North."
*  "In Korean Flareup," Miami News (US). February 27, 1975; excerpt, "... North Korean vessels found cruising about 20 miles south of the extension of the military demarcation line between the two Koreas."
:;1980s
*  "North Korea Returns 12 South Koreans," Toledo Blade (US). October 20, 1985; excerpt, "... fishing in international waters waters about 40 miles west of the South Korean island of Paeknyong-do near the western sea extension of the military demarcation line dividing the Koreas
Does our article need to acknowledge this conventional usage? According to our wiki-policy, it is "original research" to state that the recurring mis-usage of the term "MDL" has caused it to evolve as a trope; but the problem is in the assignment of an identifying label, not in the reasoning which informs the analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical mis-usage

message: The comment that US Soldiers patrol the MDL is incorrect. US troops have not patrolled the MDL in about 16 years.  Only ROK troops conduct ground or air patrols of the MDL.  
In fact, the Joint Security Area battalion no longer has any American ground force components.  There are about 15 US Soldiers in the JSA Battalion - all in the command group or as tour guides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.235.146 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Patrols the MDL?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Military Demarcation 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/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 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) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This needs to be written more clearly. I could not follow the last sentence. 173.86.45.90 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian Control Zone (CCZ)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military Demarcation 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/20120311044853/http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/099th_issue/990616015.htm to http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/099th_issue/990616015.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126232614/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2032789,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2032789,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628223126/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Armistice?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Armistice&sa=Search to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Armistice?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Armistice&sa=Search
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) 04:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following caption to one of the photographs in this article: "Often thought of as the MDL between the North (left) and South (right), marked by a concrete slab between the conference buildings on JSA, this is actually the North side of the DMZ.[citation needed]" may not be correct. Other sources, for example the map in the Wikipedia "Joint Security Area" article, show the MDL as a line crossing through these buildings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkyray5 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture caption is incorrect and was the result of an edit by an IP in March 2020. The IP's source is "see Google Maps" - and while in the most pedantic way that may be correct - and that's assuming Google Maps is even correct - multiple agreements between the UNC and the KPA have firmly established the MDL as running through the center of the buildings. Furthermore, Google Maps has restrictions on mapping in South Korea which limits its accuracy. OpenStreetMap has the border running squarely through the buildings. Mfko (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture caption incorrect?