![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think there's an official romanization for the treaty name, probably because the treaty was made in secret.
I chose the current title "Sino–North Korean Border Treaty" for two reasons. First, it has the most hits when you google it with exact match, and second it's a reasonable name. Will explain second reason below.
Here are various candidates for the names I've found:
Think we can eliminate above two: not specific enough to North Korea.
Note Shen and Xia were inconsistent about romanization (and often spelling and grammar in general). I think the latter four names are debatable, but current title has most hits in Google. toobigtokale ( talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
280 as per Lee (2007) and the JoongAng Ilbo's orig leak, 260 as per US Congress (although they were likely using rough mile approximation), 500 as per Shen and Xia.
I'm leaning towards Lee's approximation; it lines up closer with Congress's, and he's more precise about his analysis in general. Shen and Xia's paper had a lot of great info but was repetitive and filled with little mistakes. toobigtokale ( talk) 21:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I decided to have both treaties discussed on the same article, and not make a separate article for the 1964 treaty.
Reasoning:
If significant scholarship emerges that treats the treaties separately, I encourage future editors to split off article for the 1964 treaty. toobigtokale ( talk) 18:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Toobigtokale FYI, per MOS:ENBETWEEN, the page title should use a regular hyphen, and not an en-dash, since the title uses a "combining form", rather than an independent word. (For example, see First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War, or Franco-Prussian War) Just letting you know before I move the page. :3 F4U ( they /it) 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think there's an official romanization for the treaty name, probably because the treaty was made in secret.
I chose the current title "Sino–North Korean Border Treaty" for two reasons. First, it has the most hits when you google it with exact match, and second it's a reasonable name. Will explain second reason below.
Here are various candidates for the names I've found:
Think we can eliminate above two: not specific enough to North Korea.
Note Shen and Xia were inconsistent about romanization (and often spelling and grammar in general). I think the latter four names are debatable, but current title has most hits in Google. toobigtokale ( talk) 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
280 as per Lee (2007) and the JoongAng Ilbo's orig leak, 260 as per US Congress (although they were likely using rough mile approximation), 500 as per Shen and Xia.
I'm leaning towards Lee's approximation; it lines up closer with Congress's, and he's more precise about his analysis in general. Shen and Xia's paper had a lot of great info but was repetitive and filled with little mistakes. toobigtokale ( talk) 21:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I decided to have both treaties discussed on the same article, and not make a separate article for the 1964 treaty.
Reasoning:
If significant scholarship emerges that treats the treaties separately, I encourage future editors to split off article for the 1964 treaty. toobigtokale ( talk) 18:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Toobigtokale FYI, per MOS:ENBETWEEN, the page title should use a regular hyphen, and not an en-dash, since the title uses a "combining form", rather than an independent word. (For example, see First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War, or Franco-Prussian War) Just letting you know before I move the page. :3 F4U ( they /it) 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)