Talk:Border/Archives/2019

Merge Maritime boundaries

Is there a reason against merging Maritime boundaries into this article? --Bsherr (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. There is no reason not the merge it that I can see. I've been discussing the issue with the creator of Maritime boundaries on my talk page; I advised against creation of a new article, but he essentially disregarded what I said. It can easily be a subsection of this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Did you notify User:Tenmei about this discussion? I presume not, because he will not leave a question like this unanswered. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Both articles are templated. Tenmei has edited Maritime boundaries since the template was added, so presumably is aware. --Bsherr (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The gravamen reduced to a graphic representation:
A = Border
B = Maritime boundary

• Setting up to fail: This thread begins with a negative assertion, a rhetorical question. It signals a cognitive bias filter which rejects all comment. --Tenmei (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think the comment by implication at least invites an explanation as to why the articles should remain separate, if there is one to give. If you reject the opening statement, please accept this invitation—I invite you to explain why the articles should remain separate, or in other words, why the merge should not take place. My invitation assumes you are opposed to the merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My inquiry does include my bias, but it's not fair to assume that I would illogically reject all opposition. I phrased the question in the negative only because I thought the reasons in favor were relatively general and obvious. But I don't mind laying them out. First, I assume boundary and border are synonymous. Second, I assume maritime boundary is a particular type of boundary or border, and thus that the former is a specific concept within the latter. Third, I observe that the maritime boundary article is short, only about a dozen sentences. This leads me to conclude that Maritime boundary would benefit from inclusion as a section of Border. But if any of those premises are wrong, or if the conclusion is wrong, I'd welcome discussion. I promise I'm reflective and capable of changing my opinion (but it would really be better if you would do me and other users the courtesy of making that your opening assumption). --Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the graphic illustrations from an 1860 book, Bsherr is not wrong to construe the relationship between Border and Maritime boundary in terms expressed by Ex. A; and Tenmei is not wrong to construe the relationship in terms expressed by Ex. I or Ex. O. Each analysis is arguably correct -- not mutually exclusive.

This thread presents several conflated problems. The ostensible subject represents the least of these. On one hand, I can parse the relevant issues well enough. I am able to represent the issues visually, but I have no way to make guesses about what factors, if any, Bsherr or Good Ol’factory will find persuasive.

Lessons learned the hard way inform my response to the problems this thread illustrates. The previously posted Euler diagram above produced no response. If the graphic illustrations at the right are similarly rejected, the communication barriers are greater than I'd imagined. If so, does this demonstrate that I "just don't get it" or that you don't "get it." In such circumstances, I don't know what to do. In other words, I have difficulty making guesses about what someone else doesn't understand. I don't know how to make guesses about the critical distinction between unable or unwilling to engage critical issues.

Additional edits to Maritime boundary -- and especially the graphics -- may resolve any questions about a merge. The limits of maritime boundaries are expressed in polylines and in polygon layers of sovereignty and control, calculated from the declaration of a baseline.

Yes, I grasp the taxonomic reasoning which construes "maritime border" as a sub-set of "border." Yes, I do appreciate that sometimes "maritime border" and "maritime boundary" can be used to mean effectively the same thing. Simultaneously, it is not difficult for me to acknowledge that the concept of "maritime boundary" is expansive and expanding. I recognize that "maritime boundary" is both a term of "law" and of "political geography."

There has been an evolution of interest in maritime boundaries in the past 40 years. The introduction to Volume V of Charney's International Maritime Boundaries here helps me to learn that this has become an area of legal practice and of scholarly investigation.

If these factors are deemed irrelevant, it proves that I cannot overcome a cognitive bias which I don't understand. --Tenmei (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not clear on why we can't just make our comments without being stroppy. There is not necessary one "correct" approach—we all just have different opinions. So state your opinion, and don't worry too much on how others react. Merely posting a Euler diagram is not a clear statement of opinion and is not the normal way on Wikipedia of posting an opinion that will hopefully help lead to a consensus decision. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning to any who might be misled: Standard pronunciation is "an Euler diagram", not "a Euler diagram". It's pronounced like "oiler". Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Q.E.D., a set-up. Sentences deemed "stroppy" are struck out. --Tenmei (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, no one is setting you up to fail or setting your opinion up to fail. I think everyone who has commented here has a legitimate desire to find the best solution. I didn't understand why your comment had such a defensive tone, that's all. The proposal is not a personal attack on you, and I just think it's counterproductive to adopt a "martyr's complex" approach to the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Map showing maritme boundaries in the Yellow Sea.

  A: United Nations Command-created Northern Limit Line, 1953
  B: North Korea-declared "Inter-Korean MDL", 1999

---

The locations of specific islands are reflected in the configuration of each maritime boundary, including
•1–Yeonpyeong Island
•2–Baengnyeong Island
•3–Daecheong Island

---

Other map features
Other map features: 4-Jung-gu (Incheon Intl. Airport), 5-Seoul, 6-Incheon, 7-Haeju, 8-Kaesong, 9-Ganghwa County, 10-Bukdo Myeon, 11-Deokjeokdo, 12-Jawol Myeon, 13-Yeongheung Myeon

• Tenmei, could you explain in what context a maritime boundary is not a border? That would help me understand more readily than your graphic can. There's really no reason this has to be so hostile. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for Tenmei, but what s/he might be getting at is that a maritime boundary might not be a border between two countries. Sometimes, a maritime boundary just marks the division between territorial waters of one country and international waters on the other side. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose While maritime boundaries are a type of border they deserve their own page. This page should be summarized in a paragraph and placed on the border page than linked here. Have made these changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. I feel like entire Maritime boundaries page should be removed. significant overlap with the topic of another page. 660gd4qo (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Significant overlap with what page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This one, presumably. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks. It appears that "maritime boundary" is however an expansion on information which all could not all fit on this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - A "Maritime boundary" is a significant and complex legal entity in the Laws of the Sea, and deserves its own article. Rwendland (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - borders have a definite jurisdictional definition, usually legally defined, and is an entirely human mental construct. Boundaries are not jurisdictional, and are often imposed by geological or environmental conditions. Maritime boundaries are conceptual while maritime borders are recognised in territorial international law, two very different concepts Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is a "maritime boundary" that is defined by international treaties, and is thus a legal concept. eg see the U.S. Dept of State web page "U.S. Maritime Boundaries: Agreements and Treaties".[1] Because it is such an important legal concept, it should have its own article. An example of a "maritime boundary" that is not a border between states is a maritime boundary between Exclusive Economic Zones that define fishing etc control zones. Rwendland (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Exclusive Economic Zone is not an example of 'boundary' since it is a defined legal term in international law. The issue is demarcation. A border can be marked or measured. Also in English there is a recognition of a border guard while boundary markers have been retained only in property law.

Boundary seems to be in use in North America. However, it is a more elastic concept describing areas bounded by other areas. Law of the Sea only mentions boundaries once, and does not define the term. So for example the Indian Ocean is bounded by the territorial waters of the states located around it, except those with access seas. There is no specific border or territorial water that separates the Arabian Sea from the Indian Ocean, and therefore the Arabian Sea bounds the Indian Ocean, as do other named water areas, not a part of the ocean according to the International Hydrographic Organization LIMITS OF OCEANS AND SEAS 3rd Ed 1953. One outcome of this is that the Philippines in most geographic atlases is listed as having no boundaries in the 'Borders' entry (p.432, The World Geographical Encyclopedia (Geo-Data), Thomson-Gale, 3ed ed., 2003 Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Maritime boundary" is internationally the normal official terminology. Looking at the UN Law of the Sea website gives the following example:

• A Judge on the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea when giving an online lecture uses the subtitle "Maritime Boundary Delimitation" [2]
• The UN books recording agreements uses titles like "Maritime Boundary Agreements 1970/84" [3] (beware: 318 page scanned PDF)
• In the UN LoS internet introduction "maritime boundary" is frequently used, but the word "border" is not used at all [4]

On top of that the US [5] (and other states, eg UK [6] [7]) use "maritime boundary" in official material. The evidence seems overwhelming to me. AFAICS "maritime border" is quite frequntly used as a partial-synonym by journalists etc, but the official and academic terminology is clear and ought to be the one used in an encyclopedia. Rwendland (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Is it helpful to mention that Maritime border currently exists as a redirect page linking Maritime boundary? Is this a distinction without a difference? --Tenmei (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

References