Talk:Maritime boundary

Throwing out the baby with the bath water
The map posted by Idh0854 was removed here: However, despite its admitted flaws, the slight variation in graphics does help illustrate the subject of this article. The map varient was restored, and then deleted by Tomchen1989, presumably because any possible "plus" was not more important than the "minuses" of a non-"language neutral" map?
 * Graphics representation of disjunctive maritime boundaries
 * diff 11:03, 24 November 2010 Tomchen1989 (14,005 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Idh0854 (talk); Lang neutral ver. (TW))

IMO, the difference in presenting a maritime boundary which reflects a coastal baseline and a maritime boundary which reflects a military demarcation line is useful and clear. IMO, the alternative graphics "marries" and compares well with graphics of the Geoscience Australia map. IMO, issues of language neutrality are irrelevant in the limited context of this article only.

This edit history suggests the need for talk page discussion about how best to represent these uniquely disjunctive maritime boundaries in a graphic map image?

This sub-section was blanked out -- removed entirely here: The rationale for the deletion of this section is insufficient. It can be characterized as something like throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Tenmei (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Illustrative example or examples?
 * diff 07:17, 25 November 2010 660gd4qo (12,569 bytes) (the only one case is pointless. numerous Maritime boundary dispute at world. Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute. Spratly dispute. this content already belong to Northern Limit Line)


 * Don't bother describing the detail of the "2010 military incident" and having a section for it. We r talking about the boundary. I reverted the edit by Idh0854, not only because of language neutral, vector and translation's quality issue, but also because that he lacked the original source for his "Shooting training zone" and the "Position of coast ordnance", and that we are primarily talking about the boundary rather than the conflict in this article. (yeah, actually this one aims also to show the conflict, plz rewrite the section "2010 military incident", change it to "Korean maritime boundary disputes" or something, and then use this map which aims to show the boundaries, just like this version (diff modified by me, this is ruined after 660gd4qo's blank out and your revert).) The maritime boundary disputes between them had not been since 2010 military incident, but since a long long time ago. It caused not only the 2010 military incident, but also the First Battle of Yeonpyeong, Second Battle of Yeonpyeong, Battle of Daecheong and maybe lots more. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with "the only one case is pointless" said by 660gd4qo, but not his remove. "The only one case" can exist, but we'd better add more cases. But firstly, "2010 military incident" should be changed to "Korean maritime boundary disputes" like I said above. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tomchen1989 -- Firstly, yes. Your explanations are helpful and persuasive. As you suggested, I edited the words in the section heading and the image caption. Please note that your map with ROK and DPRK maritime boundary lines is restored, and the link to alternate map graphics is deleted. These changes are informed by your talk page comments. Further edits are to be expected, of course; but these are steps which can proceed without delay. Please do not be discouraged by my questions.  If any future edit causes timely questions, we deal with the issues in a talk page thread like this one. --Tenmei (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel like entire "Disputes" section should be removed.
 * 1) Out of topic
 * 2) Same section already exist List of countries and territories by maritime boundaries
 * 3) Only one case is pointless
 * 4) the example is not the good case. two conflict is "Inter-Korea" dispute. Not international dispute.
 * 5) Editor's own POV Problem.  (eg. unilaterally drawn)
 * 6) The editor justified this section. "Many disputes have been resolved through negotiations, but not all." I feel nonsense. This is not inductive logic. 660gd4qo (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 660gd4qo -- There is nothing objectively improper or problematic in any of my edits. I have to guess that you have a subjective problem because you complain about "Editor's own POV Problem (eg. unilaterally drawn). This one word does not illustrate or prove POV because it is explicitly supported by an inline citation and an embedded link to the specific text which informed the sentence to which you object:


 * Questioned sentence–#5 above
 * A western maritime boundary between the two Koreas was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations in 1953 at the close of the Korean War.
 * &mdash; Kim, Kwang-Tae. "After Exchange of Fire, N. Korea Threatens More Strikes on South," Time (US). November 23, 2010; excerpt, "The countries' western maritime boundary has long been a flash point between the two Koreas. The North does not recognize the border that was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War."


 * Verified and explained
 * The word "unilateral" is in the text of the Time article which supports my wording in the sentence which is questioned here. The article can be easily accessed by clicking on the embedded hyperlink which was always part of the inline citation. Objectively, the mere fact that anyone uses the shorthand acronym "POV" as an accusation proves he/she is familiar with complaining Your complaint alone not that there is any good reason for the complaint. Nor does the mere citing of the acronym "POV" serve as a reason for rejecting or averting the reasonable discussion which is the hallmark of those who are willing and able to work collaboratively.


 * 660gd4qo -- I hope that my prompt and clear response to the one item in your list shows that I am taking these critical comments seriously. I also hope you will construe it as demonstration that we agree about the value and importance of neutrally-written prose in all articles -- and this is especially significant in ones which are topical and controversial. --Tenmei (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I undsertand your explain of unilaterally drawn. Frankly, It was not main reason. You still not answer 4 questioned problems. Most problem is, You making duplicated topic at everywhere in now. I urge that you should better stop overlapping same topic on the many pages. For example, your recent edit at Maritime boundary, Military Demarcation Line are almost same thing. In addition, worthless and irrevant topics at there. You can using overlapping topic with "{ { main | .... } }" tag. it will make it sound much more reasonable and verifiable. Dispute section at this page is cleary out of topic. If you keep doing it, title name should change other. As I explained again and again with 5 problems, your gambit is no longer tolerable here.660gd4qo (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 660gd4qo -- Good. Let's focus on a small accomplishment we have achieved together. This is a constructive step.  If you understand the reason I put the word "unilateral" in a sentence, then the process of dispute resolution has worked in this one small way. Does this mean that you now withdraw your unwelcome accusation? If so, good. Please strike though item #5 on your list so that we can go on to address the other items on your list one-by-one. Thank you. Do we agree that this diff reflects your understanding that "unilateral" is consistent with WP:V.
 * Moving forward from foundation of agreement In this limited context, the word "unilateral" is problematic -- not because of the word itself, but because of the way the North Koreans "spin" the consequences of its acceptance.  The term is explicitly accurrate and neutral, but it also represents a DPRK argument.  It is a trope.  This one word is an arguable point-of-view in light of the research which informs the rest of this article. Question: Is it essential to explicitly state the point the North Koreans seem to want to make. IMO, yes, it is essential. Similarly, in the image caption, the word "claim" to describe South Korea's relationship with the NLL has to be construed in the context.  In other words, the use of the word "claim" is informed by the same article which caused me to insert the term "unilateral." IMO, these two words -- "unilateral" and "claim" -- are necessary for the overall neutrality and credibility of this article and its corollaries. The fact that anyone would choose to pounce on them so aggressively only serves to prove the importance and power of these two small words. --Tenmei (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. We should conclude word of "unilateral". How about this? eg."UN darw up this line, However, DPRK claims that this line is "unilateral".
 * And here is the additinal questions of your edit. please stay focus on content dispute, no personal attack, plz.


 * 1) "Korean maritime boundary disputes" Why this thing should include at this page? This content already duplicated at Northern Limit Line. Any reason that this only one case is siginificant content at Maritime boundary topic?
 * 2) The NLL dispute are actually/technically not martime boundary disputes. Because It is Inter-Korea dispute, Not "nation vs. nation dispute". both koreas consider they are not outer nations. this line is acutally "military limit line". The NLL line is hardly consider as maritime boundary by International law. (even if someone have another view. the "attribute" of this line is highly controversial) --660gd4qo (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Change to more polite and good word
The words of this section heading are taken from 660gd4qo's edit summary here. The words of 660gd4qo in this diff are constructive and welcome. It is reasonable to copy-and-paste these sentences in the talk page venue for Maritime boundary:
 * "Hey, thanks for your work on the articles about the martime boundary with both korea. I'm especially grateful for the sources you've been able to find and add; they are a valuable resource for anyone doing research on these topics."

This creates a context for mentioning that Maritime boundary includes 23 cited notes and 9 cited references. The edit history of this article demonstrates a slow process which ensures the academic credibility of sentences and paragraphs. This represents a solid foundation for further edits and collaborative work. --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I will not oppose your edit. because i have no interesing this topic. However, NLL is not technically Maritime boundary. NLL issue is still questinable content at this page. I think you can using overlapping topic with "{ { main | .... } }" tag. it will make it sound much more reasonable and verifiable.660gd4qo (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Questionable content?
 * I wonder if I need to single out one clause in the diff above, i.e., NLL is not technically Maritime boundary? Is it necessary that this one mistaken concept be rejected or clarified per WP:V.  In other words, is it necessary to reiterate that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth &mdash; whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true?
 * The citations which support two consecutive sentences at Korean maritime border incidents illustrate why the critical judgment of 660gd4qo may deserve closer scrutiny:
 * In 1973, the status of the NLL was challenged by the DPRK negotiators at the 346th meeting of the Military Armistice Commission. &mdash; Elferink, Alex G. Oude. (1994).
 * At that time North Korea sent its patrol ships south of the NLL approximately 43 times in October and November of 1973. &mdash; Seong-Geol Hong, Sun-Pyo Kim, Hyung-Ki Lee. "Fisheries Cooperation and Maritime Delimitation Issues between North Korea and Its Neighboring Countries," Ocean Policy Research, Vol. 16, No. 1 (June 30, 2001), pp. 208-209 (PDF 18-19); retrieved 28 Nov 2010.
 * Both of these reliable sources use the terms "NLL" and "maritime boundary" interchangeably. This usage establishs a necessary context. In general terms: yes, the NLL is one example of a maritime boundary; but no, it is not the international maritime boundary in the West Sea.  In any other venue but this one, it might be unnecessary to parse the meaning of this clause.   Perhaps it is unnecessary here as well? The distinction may remain unresolved or become moot if the two Koreas make progress toward unification. --Tenmei (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maritime boundary. 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 tag to http://www.ga.gov.au/marine/jurisdiction/definitions.jsp
 * 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/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

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) 22:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)