Talk:Military Demarcation Line

Maritime DML

Blanket deletion of all sentences mentioning maritime DML is not not justified. Sentences with inline citation support are credible additions which enhance the usefulness and credibility of this article.

A blanket deletion of this kind remains unexplained in terms of WP:Burden.

Which sentences are considered problematic? Why? Which ones are undisputed? Why?

• 1st paragraph? sentence A? B? C?
• 2nd paragraph? sentence A? B? C?
• 3rd paragraph? sentence A? B? C?

One of the lessons learned the hard way is this: There is no constructive, practical way to respond to hollow generalities.--Tenmei (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• This section of discussion should be titled "Maritime DML?" The proper noun Military Demarcation Line -- as formally agreed to in the Armistice -- ended at the shoreline. By including this maritime information, and including it in the proper noun DML, we are re-writing history. And to demonstrate how more than just the Camel's nose is at play here, editors are adding the incidents at sea. Shall we next add the attempted clandestine submarine landing attempts? After all, they occurred because nK went south of the "Maritime DML". And then we should add the aircraft hijackings -- they occurred south of the DML. And then add the Rangoon bombing. After all, that occurred south of the 38th parallel too. At most we need a See Also for the NLL. --S. Rich (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The references recently provided (to this off-topic section) do not say The Armistice's Military Demarcation Line as being extended into the Yellow Sea. They describe the Yellow Sea line as a (non-proper noun) demarcation. In fact, the [s:Korean Armistice Agreement] says the Agreement can only be altered "by mutually acceptable amendments and additions" of the parties. Combining/switching usage of NLL and MDL is poor editing. It it best to take out this maritime stuff.--S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

S. Rich -- I take your point. IMO, the use of reductio ad absurdum is helpful in this context. The gravamen is explicit and unequivocal in your judgment call -- "poor editing."

I emphasize two of your sentences by responding to them (and for ease of reference, please note that I have highlighted them in blue with a hyperlink to your original diff).

• Yes and No — By including this maritime information, and including it in the proper noun DML, we are re-writing history. Yes, the meaning and consequences of post-Armistice demarcation lines in the East Sea have not remained static across the arc of the past 50 years. Yes, in a sense, this can be described as "rewriting history." Yes, we need to be very careful in this section of the article. No, "we" have transgressed neither WP:NOR nor WP:V in the current version of Military Demarcation Line; however, a number of reliable sources do reflect and verify notable changes which have developed since 1953. Is it possible that the subject matter of this section requires something like fuzzy logic?
• No — At most we need a See Also for the NLL. IMO, even if the current version is shown to be too expansive, this proposed option is too limited.

At this point, there is no way we can achieve an objectively perfect article; but I look forward to working with you to edit this section in a way that is more neutral, less controversial and on-topic. Please allow me to restate our common goal: We aim to achieve academic credibility in all Wikipedia articles.

IMO, your clear point of view is defensible, valid, certain. It is good, but not best. We do not seem to agree about what constitutes "poor editing" in this very narrow context.

I offer an excerpt from a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which seems arguably helpful:

A. here → AaronY explains: " I guess what I'm saying is that its obvious to me if Bill Clinton attends a softball game in Peoria and it makes the local paper it doesn't merit inclusion in his article, even though technically this guideline says that it does."

B. here → Blueboar explains: "If no reliable sources verify Clinton's attendance at the softball game, we may not mention it (even if his attendance is "true"). If reliable sources verify his attendance then we may mention it... but that permission does not mean we must mention it."

Do I need to try to explain this in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

S. Rich-- May I restate what I understand to be your POV? The ambit of this encyclopedia topic was established, defined and limited by the text of the armistice in 1953; and anything subsequent is off-topic? --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The topic is "Military Demarcation Line" and it is clear that MDL refers to the "Military Demarcation Line and Demilitarized Zone" established as part of the Korean Armistice Agreement (KAA), Article I, paragraphs 1-11. The KAA includes provisions regarding the MDL and DMZ do not extend to either the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan. The NLL (or Northern Boundary Line were not part of the MDL. So, when we write about a demarcation line in the Yellow Sea, we are talking about something which is not part of the MDL. The various incidents in the Yellow Sea are properly covered in the NLL article. Now if the UNC and PRK agreed that the MDL extended into the Yellow Sea (which they could do IAW para. 62 of the KAA), then we could properly describe the MDL as extending out into the Yellow Sea as per whatever the UNC and PRK agreed to. But we have no such agreement. Any reference to the demarcation line (non-proper noun) in the Yellow Sea comes under the NLL article, which we should mention in passing. But we should not include the maritime incidents in this specific article. They are on-topic in other articles.--S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

S. Rich -- Your reasoning is sound; and I have added your words as parenthetic inline notes in the article. The exclusionary conclusion follows logically from the definitional premises. The hypothetical example helps clarify your POV; and all parts of your reasoning are internally consistent. These are points of agreement; and re-reading the comparatively short armistice text enhances the clarity of your analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Counter-argument

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)

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)

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)

Point of view

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)

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)

DPRK Line shown in mapbox

Tagged as dubious. See discussion at Northern Limit Line. --S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Re: strike out text: the tagging was done because the lines drawn did not have a RS attached, not because of any doubt that there was a line. This was resolved by finding an academic source for the lines.--S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the dubious nature of the DPRK line is not disputed. However, in our wiki-context, my impression is that the dubious-tag is unhelpful or perhaps wrongly placed? This is a fine point which is difficult. My reasoning is informed by this:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

The North Korean line has dubious significance, but there is no question that the unique DPKR line has been asserted and that this assertion has been published in more than one reliable source. In this caption, I would guess that the dubious tag is not helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion at NLL. I am not disputing the existence of the line, but the way it has been drawn in the mapbox. Where did the redline come from?--S. Rich (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is identified at the Commons description page, e.g.,

Based on File:Inchon islands 2.svg (by Amble) and File:朝韩争议区（延坪岛附近）.svg (by 玖巧仔). Modified and converted to language neutral version by Tomchen1989. Flags are from File:Flag of South Korea.svg and File:Flag of North Korea.svg which are in the public domain. The Northern Limit Line and the Military Demarcation Line are according to Xinhua and NYTimes.

Our map appears to most closely resemble one found at the Xinhua web page. --Tenmei (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Xinhua is good! -- but please see discussion on Talk:Northern Limit Line where I've found and posted an academic WP:RS. The material I've put in is at the top of the talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The verifying citation from Maritime Policy journal was added to the Commons description page here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

SRich32977 has reasonable questions about the appropriate scope of this article. I suggested a request for comment might be initiated in mid-January.

Overview

This small article is highly important. It was an essential part of front page news stories in 2010; and it is likely to figure prominently in the news of 2011. Despite its relatively narrow scope -- or perhaps because of it -- this article may become noteworthy as a Good Article candidate.

A difference of opinion cannot be resolved among those who have invested time, research and discussion in developing this article. An intractable disagreement and inconsistent points of view are verified with inline citation support using reliable sources.

On one hand

In 1953, the Korean Armistice Agreement established and defined a Military Demarcation Line (MDL) on the Korean peninsula; and that treaty has not been since modified. The explicit language of the treaty text does not extend into the adjacent seas.

Anything not explicitly mentioned in the 1953 text is off-topic.

On the other hand

In 1953, the United Nations Command unilaterally established the Northern Limit Line (NLL) to prevent southern incursions into the north — not anything to do with the MDL on land.

In the 50 years since the armistice, common usage has recognized a de facto MDL and North Korea has unilaterally declared an MDL in the Yellow Sea -- compare, e.g., map in New York Times (US), map in Daily Mail (UK)

Proposed RfC text?

The definition of Military Demarcation Line (MDL) in the Korean Armistice Agreement (KAA) does not encompass the changes in usage which have developed over the past 50 years. In the undisputed, explicit terms of the KAA, all sentences about maritime demarcation in our MDL article are off-topic. In 2011, should the "Maritime demarcation" section be deleted or radically reduced in size because it is plainly inconsistent with the 1953-limited scope of this term? In other words, does the proper subject of our article include post-1953 changes in the way MDL is used and understood as a term and as an acronym?

Are there suggestions about editing this draft text? --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)