Talk:Korean maritime border incidents

Merger

I am the proposer. Why merge? When comparing the articles, they both list the various incidents near the NLL But nothing distinguishes the confrontations. E.g., the crab fishing incidents are explained, but non-crabbing incidents are included into the crab wars article. This is a COI problem in that crab war article proponents may want their article to have greater importance and thereby include non-crabbing incidents. The best (only) way to clarify is to combine the articles.--S. Rich 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

synthesis

As discussed in my merger proposal, there are incidents along the NLL which are not clearly (or even vaguely) related to crabbing near the NLL. Could there be other primary causes for the confrontations? Consider this -- NPRK underwent a major revaluation of its currency late last year. The savings of many, many people were wiped out by this because of the restrictions imposed on how much old currency could be exchanged for the new currency. This has lead to much public dissatisfaction. Could it be that the NK government "set up" this latest confrontation in order to raise the old specter of US and ROK aggression to divert the ongoing currency revaluation unhappiness? If that is the case, then crabbing has nothing to do with the March sinking and seeking to tie that event with the rich crabbing waters as a Crab Wars incident is improper synthesis.--S. Rich 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 incident

Why is the Cheonan incident here? There was nothing that I saw about this that suggested the crab fishing dispute was a factor. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Battles"

And why are these incidents described as "battles"? They were skirmishes at best. The usual way to describe such events on WP is "Action of... " with a date. Are there any sources that describe them as battles? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've tagged the various articles and deleted their korean war category. srich32977 (talk)--S. Rich User talk:Srich32977 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing signature.--S. Rich (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I am at a loss to know what this page is about.
The title suggests it is a fishing dispute, along the lines of the Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland. On the other hand it is written as if it about border dispute incidents between North and South Korea.
Either way it falls short. If it is the former there should be some mention of the fishing aspects of the dispute; it should refer to, say, the activity of the Chinese fishermen, and the whole pattern of incidents, of which there are many (22 in 2009) should be described, not just the ones that deteriorated into shooting matches. If it is about the simmering conflict between NK and SK it should, again, be part of a wider discussion of the whole border dispute. And the unspoken claim, here, that such a dispute is titled the Crab War needs to be backed up with a citation.
I am proposing the article be re-jigged to conform to one of these patterns; I personally favour the first, as that is what the title says. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs expanding. Why don't you just go ahead and expand it? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of changing the focus to the fishing dispute, so I don’t want to go ahead unless folks are happy about it. And some of the stuff here would be going, so it mightn't be much of an expansion.

I found this with stuff about border incidents generally, up to 2001; and this for stuff since then. There are incidents here which are just about fishing, (most without any shooting involved, and some involving the Chinese) while others are straight border clashes, with no fishing component at all.

So the article would look a bit different.Xyl 54 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Also, there used to be a picture of a SK boat "shoulder-barging" a NK one, with a caption like "to show the type of battle it was" but it seems to have disappeared. Does anyone know what happened to it?

It reminded me a lot of the pictures we saw depicting the Cod war, which is why I think the fishing dispute angle is a better one to pusue. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Xyl 54 with respect 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)

there was another incident today on november 23

there was yet another incident today on november 23 this artcal now needs to be updates. as it turns out this border dispute has difinatly not been resolved. why cant the northern most island thats claimed just go to north korea. look at how the cod wars were solved they gave iceland its extra territory north korea should get some kind of a settlement before this war gets very bloody and there becomes a 2nd Korean war. 99.155.212.38 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea Mr Chamberlain, why not just hand over the keys to the Blue House and be done with it? This is Bullying 101, you don't give in to it. Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

An odd misunderstanding -- not yet an edit war -- has arisen from the 1st sentence of this article:

• A. diff 08:10, 28 November 2010 Tenmei (10,876 bytes) (change? 1999 →1973 in 1st sentence -- verified by Elferink citation)
• B. diff 12:55, 28 November 2010 Mztourist (10,866 bytes) (Undid revision 399290098 by Tenmei (talk) the first conflict took place in 1999, not 1973)
• C. diff 16:38, 28 November 2010 Tenmei (10,876 bytes) (Undid revision 399313693 by Mztourist revert not defensible -- 1973 verified by citation with embedded hyperlink)

The book which is cited as support for this introductory sentence was published in 1994; and in our WP:V context, 1999 makes no sense. A review of this article's edit history reveals that Mztourist added the the Elferlink citation here.

The function of the first sentence is arguably summarized by this cogent phrase "framework, background and overview for a series of related disputes" in Xyl 54's comment here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean maritime border incidents.

FACT: UNCLOS III began in 1973.

FACT: Something happened in 1999.

FACT: The cited source confirms the genesis of conflict in 1973. --Tenmei (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

When Jpatokal edited the opening sentence here, the result was an inadvertent deletion of the supporting citation Rwendland added here

• diff 21:50, 28 November 2010 Jpatokal (11,597 bytes) (rv back to older initial paragraph)

This small, but significant mistake is resolved by restoring Rwendland's version of the sentence (+ verifying citation support) here.

Please note that the accompanying Elferlink citation becomes redundant— replaced by a more recent, more on-point citation. --Tenmei (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No objection to this change as such; however, the entire paragraph seems quite slanted towards the ROK view. The DPRK's position -- namely that the NLL is invalid and its line is correct -- should be explained as well. Jpatokal (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits to cover the 1973 incursions and corresponding changes to the subsequent paragraph. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An arguably reasonable response to Jpatokal's constructive criticism is this: the 2nd paragraph of the introduction was moved into the "History" section. This edit changed no words, only the positioning of this paragraph.

I hope this is perceived as a helpful step in a good direction. --Tenmei (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I’ve made some changes here; the introduction needs to say what the page is about, before launching into a description. And I've moved the paragraph about 1973 into the History section; it seems to fit better there. I’ve also re-arranged a couple of sentences to make them read better, but I’ve tried to preserve the content. Hopefully the process is clear from the edit sequence. I hope that's OK with everyone; it seemed easier to be bold than to try and explain it, but it can be reverted if not. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New name

"Korean NLL Conflict" is not a suitable name since "NLL" is meaningless unless you're intimately familiar with the issue, and the capitalization is wrong too. I've reverted the move pending further discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the move Jpatokal initiated. --Tenmei (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tone tag

WP:flowery applies to certain sections. Re-write is needed.--S. Rich (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

New Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to proceed.Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose a merger with List of border incidents involving North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Mztourist (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, as it now stands, all the content of this article is duplicated in the List or in Northern Limit Line.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I proposed this as an AfD by mistake and Ceosad said that it should have been a merger proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.