Talk:Sino-Korean Border Agreement

Title of page

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:

• "Sino-Korean Boundary Treaty" (Shen and Xia)
• "Sino-Korean Border Treaty" (Shen and Xia)

Think we can eliminate above two: not specific enough to North Korea.

• "Sino-North Korean Boundary Treaty" (Shen and Xia)
• "Sino-North Korean Border Treaty" (Shen and Xia, Lee, Park)
• "North Korea-China Border Treaty" (Song)
• "Chinese-North Korean Border Treaty" (Son)

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)

Also a reminder to future editors to not change the article title to the full title of the treaty, as per WP:COMMONNAME. As it stands, the vast majority of academic literature use the common name; it's even somewhat difficult to find the full name of the treaty unless you go looking for it. toobigtokale (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that "Sino–Korean" isn't specific enough because only one Korea has a land border with China. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm that’s a fair point on reconsideration. Do you think it should be renamed to Sino-Korean? Thanks for the vigilance toobigtokale (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

From a quick search by myself (making sure to exclude Wikipedia from the search results), my impression is that "Sino-Korean" is slightly more commmon (Found here, here, here, here, among others), but I doubt the reliability of a Google search for determining English-language usage here simply because there's barely any hits for either term.

The reasons that I prefer Sino-Korean are because its a more faithful translation of the document's name and because its a more concise title that still maintains specificity.

I've come across two sources that use "agreement", which also could be a choice since I'm not certain it would be accurate to call these two documents a treaty (which would imply that they are legally binding). ("1962 Sino-North Korean border agreement" and "Sino-North Korean border agreement") :3 F4U (they/it) 23:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on all points.

Details:

• Agreed on reliability of Google searching. Chose simply because it was a quick metric and it was hard to establish consensus otherwise
• Also agreed on agreement over treaty; I wasn't aware of that distinction, but looking at the UN definition of "agreement" it makes sense.

Complicated because "treaty" seems likelier to be in the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME... Although maybe most didn't think for too long on how to translate the title.

Maybe the "Descriptive title" section of Wikipedia:Article titles applies here: "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles."

Think there's a case for renaming the article "Sino–Korean border agreement". toobigtokale (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

How much territory did China lose?

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)

Both 1962 and 1964 treaty on same article

I decided to have both treaties discussed on the same article, and not make a separate article for the 1964 treaty.

Reasoning:

• In academic sources (mainly Korean; there are seemingly extremely few academic sources that even discuss these treaties in English, likely due to their secrecy), both treaties are basically always discussed alongside each other (if the 1964 treaty is mentioned at all). (edit: actually nvm there's a reasonable amount in English)
• The 1964 treaty is a direct result of the 1962 treaty. The 1962 treaty is insufficient to stand on its own, and literally called for the 1964 in its final section.

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)

Removing en-dash

@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)

Sounds good, thanks for pointing out the policy toobigtokale (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)