This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Note this map:
New York Times 11/23/2010 does not follow the red line we now see in the mapbox in our article. Because the present map (not the asserted existence of the "Inter-Korean MDL") is not supported by RS, it should be deleted.--
S. Rich (
talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
AH-HA! Here is an academic paper that describes the line with the weird red line deviations!! [ http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf The North/South Korea Boundary Dispute in the Yellow (West) Sea Jon M. Van Dyke, Mark J. Valencia, Jenny Miller Garmendia]. I suspect though we are now facing a copyright problem if we take copy this info -- but really don't know enough on this aspect. In any event, if an editor can properly attribute this map/article to Professor Van Dyke, I'll be happy to delete the dubious tag.-- S. Rich ( talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone has tagged Crab wars and Northern Limit Line for merging, without starting the discussion and explaining why here.
This article should not be merged, it has the potential to be much larger and will be over time. The conflict is still technically ongoing as the territorial dispute still continues. More battles may be fought in the future but more importantly, the incident sections can be enlarged to include more specific details of the encounters. Other sections can be added as well, say one discussing the strength of the North and South Korean navies in the area. Every battle that has occurred along the NLL in the past few years is part of the crab wars, though they didn't all necesarrily involve crab fishing, they all involved North Korean ships entering into the disputed crab fishing grounds.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
XYL, apparently writing NO MERGE in big bold letters is too hard for you to understand. No merge means no merge.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I agree with SRich, the whole topic should be consolidated into an NK-SK maritime border incidents page, something which is largely already covered on the NLL page. Crab Wars is just a consolidation of numerous stub articles and tries to distinguish between the issue of the maritime boundary (the NLL) and fishing rights when they are clearly all part of the same issue - North Korea not agreeing to the NLL - fishing boats and gunboats both being tools to try to undermine the NLL. If Crab Wars is really about fishing then I don't see how the Cheonan sinking or the shelling of Yeonpyeong belong there. Mztourist ( talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Andrew its not that major or unique, its just seems to be normal NK strategy presumably to try to force the US to return to the negotiating table on the nuclear issue or to consolidate the Kim Jong-Eun succession. The shelling of Yeonpyeong is now covered here on the Northern Limit Line page, the Yeonpyeong page, referred to on the Crab Wars page, as well as having its own page Shelling of Yeonpyeong, doesn't that strike you as excessive? Mztourist ( talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/admin/yun_un/up_file/opr161-06.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Note this map:
New York Times 11/23/2010 does not follow the red line we now see in the mapbox in our article. Because the present map (not the asserted existence of the "Inter-Korean MDL") is not supported by RS, it should be deleted.--
S. Rich (
talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
AH-HA! Here is an academic paper that describes the line with the weird red line deviations!! [ http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/N-SKoreaBoundary2003.pdf The North/South Korea Boundary Dispute in the Yellow (West) Sea Jon M. Van Dyke, Mark J. Valencia, Jenny Miller Garmendia]. I suspect though we are now facing a copyright problem if we take copy this info -- but really don't know enough on this aspect. In any event, if an editor can properly attribute this map/article to Professor Van Dyke, I'll be happy to delete the dubious tag.-- S. Rich ( talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone has tagged Crab wars and Northern Limit Line for merging, without starting the discussion and explaining why here.
This article should not be merged, it has the potential to be much larger and will be over time. The conflict is still technically ongoing as the territorial dispute still continues. More battles may be fought in the future but more importantly, the incident sections can be enlarged to include more specific details of the encounters. Other sections can be added as well, say one discussing the strength of the North and South Korean navies in the area. Every battle that has occurred along the NLL in the past few years is part of the crab wars, though they didn't all necesarrily involve crab fishing, they all involved North Korean ships entering into the disputed crab fishing grounds.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
XYL, apparently writing NO MERGE in big bold letters is too hard for you to understand. No merge means no merge.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 08:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I agree with SRich, the whole topic should be consolidated into an NK-SK maritime border incidents page, something which is largely already covered on the NLL page. Crab Wars is just a consolidation of numerous stub articles and tries to distinguish between the issue of the maritime boundary (the NLL) and fishing rights when they are clearly all part of the same issue - North Korea not agreeing to the NLL - fishing boats and gunboats both being tools to try to undermine the NLL. If Crab Wars is really about fishing then I don't see how the Cheonan sinking or the shelling of Yeonpyeong belong there. Mztourist ( talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Andrew its not that major or unique, its just seems to be normal NK strategy presumably to try to force the US to return to the negotiating table on the nuclear issue or to consolidate the Kim Jong-Eun succession. The shelling of Yeonpyeong is now covered here on the Northern Limit Line page, the Yeonpyeong page, referred to on the Crab Wars page, as well as having its own page Shelling of Yeonpyeong, doesn't that strike you as excessive? Mztourist ( talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.kmi.re.kr/data/linksoft/admin/yun_un/up_file/opr161-06.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)