Jump to content

Talk:Korea: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 159: Line 159:


*I think there is some sense in redirecting "Korean Peninsula" to "Geography of Korea". I think the problem is that if you look at "What links here" for the peninsula page, you will see that many of the links (I think most) derive from "Korean Peninsula" as a synonym for "North and South Korea". And this is the common way these days that "Korean Peninsula" is used, as you can see from a simple Google search. I wish people would just say "Korea", but many people don't. Hence, that redirect would be completely misleading. Readers wanting to read further about the [[Korean conflict]] would be redirected to a page about the environment.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 05:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
*I think there is some sense in redirecting "Korean Peninsula" to "Geography of Korea". I think the problem is that if you look at "What links here" for the peninsula page, you will see that many of the links (I think most) derive from "Korean Peninsula" as a synonym for "North and South Korea". And this is the common way these days that "Korean Peninsula" is used, as you can see from a simple Google search. I wish people would just say "Korea", but many people don't. Hence, that redirect would be completely misleading. Readers wanting to read further about the [[Korean conflict]] would be redirected to a page about the environment.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 05:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There is a history of consensus not to merge on the page in question and then a redirect edit happens without the good faith inclusion of the redirect discussion on the page that is to be redirected, but Jack Upland accuses of a lack of consensus. I find that ludicrous! Proposals for merge and redirect are supposed to be notified in the talk of ''both'' pages with the discussion carried out on the one most affected. Jack Upland's notification on the redirected page occurred the day he implemented the redirect([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_Peninsula&diff=prev&oldid=930822345 diff]). I came looking for the page on the ''Korean Peninsula'' and got redirected to some wannabe unified Korea article with a fictional Korean flag. If your argument is "What links here", then maybe those links are the issue for modification rather than this redirect which makes no sense to this editor. GreyShark09's comment in the last merger discussion in 2018, is actually my impression of the Korea article even before I read his statement. It may not actually be about a future unified Korea, but it certainly reads as if it was preemptively created specifically to be ready for such an occurrence. Which makes this redirect appear to be part of an agenda rather than any prudent encyclopedia pruning. I have a very hard time assuming good faith here. It would have also been more appropriate for this discussion to happen on the redirect talk page, rather than this one since there is no impact here. --[[User:Born2flie|Born2flie]] ([[User talk:Born2flie|talk]]) 00:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 19 December 2020

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeKorea was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 24, 2004, August 22, 2005, and August 22, 2006.

Is Korea a country or a "region" ?

It is my understanding that "Korea" is considered one country. There is simply a dispute over which group is the legitimate government of that country. But both sides agree that Korea is one country. Read KJU's recent New Year's speech: he refers to "our compatriots in the South" several times. Not "our neighbors". He views them as fellow members of the same nation. You can probably find statements by South Korean leaders saying similar things.

Why does the article refer to Korea as a region of two countries, if it is in reality just one country with disputed leadership?

2620:10D:C091:200:0:0:5:10AC (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1948 it was indeed one country, but is now two separate sovereign states. Perhaps in the future, it will be re-unified, but the separate governments will need to unite. Dbfirs 07:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally (United Nations), the Koreas are two different countries, the Korean War began when North Korea invaded South Korea, if they were one country then the country couldn't have invaded itself, and it would have been a civil war, the "Korean Civil War". They claim each other by de jure, but in de facto, they are not one country.--Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Country, nation, and state have numerous overlapping meanings in English. By one common viewpoint the three words are synonyms, so that any sovereign state is also a nation and a country. And anything that is not a sovereign state is neither a nation nor a country. In this viewpoint, the idea of two states in the same country is simply unintelligible gibberish. --Khajidha (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was using "country" in the sense " The territory of a nation; a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc. With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become regions or provinces of one country, and vice versa, but the tendency is to identify the term with the current political condition." (OED), but I agree that other meanings are possible. Dbfirs 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant that to be a reply to the original post. --Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but both governments agree that there is one "country" regardless of how you define that term. There is only one state. Both sides agree that, for example, Pyongyang and Seoul are part of the territory of one particular sovereign entity. They just disagree over who is the legitimate government of that single entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.47.212 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the rest of the world sees the situation. Dbfirs 09:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, define "legitimate". Seems to me that any government that the population accepts (ie: there is no active rebellion) could be described as "legitimate". --Khajidha (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"That's not how the rest of the world sees the situation." What countries see Korea as a "region"? Care to cite a source? As problematic as it is to describe Korea as one country, it is far more obscure to describe it as a "region". Credpol (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The better question is whether Wikipedia:Reliable sources see Korea as a region. For starters, Oxford Dictionaries does, a reference I'm glad to add to the article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with reliable sources, however a one sentence definition by Oxford, however excellent it is for English-language etymologies, necessarily omits the political and historical question in describing Korea. "Region" is not used as a technical descriptor but as a stand-in to remain agnostic on the ongoing political dispute. To illustrate, Cambridge describes Korea as a "former country" divided into two. The Oxford Companion to the English Language in fact uses the "classical" definition of Korea as "A country of East Asia, currently divided into North Korea and South Korea." Oxford World Encyclopedia refers to Korea geographically as a "Peninsula in E Asia". Korea is often itself described as being in the "East Asian region", and it has a national specificity that makes the word "region" awkward and opaque at best. It is pretty clear that the term "region" is one of many stand-in descriptors for the current geographical-political entity(s) of Korea, and should not be considered a technical term. This itself can be expanded on, and the literature exists in journals, atlases and histories. Indeed, I would defer to academic sources in the field of Korean studies, especially those in Korean and Chinese languages, and from international reportage for the comprehensive political nomenclature. I will try to provide some sources when I have time. To call Korea a "region" rather than "a nation divided" or perhaps "a penninsula populated by the Korean people", etc, because it is "not how the rest of the world sees the situation" I find to be basically inconsistent with existing political institutions and history. Credpol (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Region; hasn't been a country since 1910. That said, the lead seems to contradict itself, calling Korea both a former country and a region. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a country. The fact that it was under Japanese control didn't stop it being a country. Both North and South Korean regimes claim to be the government of the whole country. That doesn't mean it isn't a country.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For quite some time the lead had read Korea is a historical country... [1], and it was silently changed without an apparent consensus. I believe it best describes the subject, and I plan to restore it. "Region" is way too vague. No such user (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"historical country" was a claim with no credible source whilst "region" wasn't. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Korea is both a country (two governments have claimed to be the sole legitimate government of the whole peninsula) and a geographic region. Long time ago, we used to have an article called Korean Peninsula, it was later merged with this article. We used to have two similar articles called Arabia and Arabian Peninsula and they got merged into Arabian Peninsula as well. Technically speaking, as a geographic region, there is a very small difference between Korea and the Korean Peninsula. The region of Korea consists of the territories of both North Korea and South Korea, including Jeju Island and other nearby islands, but the Korean Peninsula only contains the peninsula. Kenwick (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, Kenwick, are there sources for saying the Korean Peninsula doesn't include the islands? That isn't a usual distinction. People tend to use "Korean Peninsula" to cover both North and South, given that the ROK is sometimes called "Korea". I think the term "country" is ambiguous. There are two states that claim the whole of the landmass. You could also say that Korea is a "nation". By the way, in case you don't know, the Peninsula article was not merged a long time ago, but only recently. The decision to merge was unanimous, and all the contributors were highly intelligent and remarkably erudite.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between everyday conversation and technical terms. In our everyday language, Korea and the Korean Peninsula basically mean the same thing: the territories governed by the ROK and the DPRK. However, as a pure geographical term, the Korean Peninsula (a physical feature, not a political region) contains the peninsula only, excluding nearby islands. There are other similar examples exist, such as Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula, Jeju Province and Jeju Island, Shandong Province and the Shandong Peninsula etc. Of course, in politics, the Korean Peninsula means both the ROK and the DPRK. The reason for the ROK being called "Korea" is obvious, because the ROK is a much more powerful country on the global stage, just like we generally call the PRC "China" and the ROC "Taiwan", not vice versa. As for the merger, maybe I've remembered it wrong, but I somehow felt these two articles had been merged quite a while ago. Maybe they have been merged and split more than once? I am not sure though. Kenwick (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=71yHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Korea vs the Korean Peninsula
Korea: 223,179 km2
Korean Peninsula: 220,847 km2
Korea = Korean Peninsula + 3,960 Islands (only Jeju Island has a significant area)
Korea – mainly used as a geopolitical and cultural term
Korean Peninsula – mainly used as a physiographical and geological term (often interchangeable with Korea as a geopolitical term, although technically it shouldn't be used that way) 120.16.92.71 (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a "Geography" Section

Maybe we should add a "Geography" section in this article and link it to the article "Geography of Korea". Since this article is about a region, it should include the region's geography.A planetree leaf (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of State

I noticed that the "heads of state" section only includes the heads of state of the Empire of Korea and the Republic of Korea (South Korea), adding another table which includes heads of state of the DPRK should be a good idea. --A planetree leaf (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of heads of state of North Korea.:

Which ones do you want to list? Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.N. Jurisdiction In Korea

This Wiki post falsely claims "the United Nations developed plans for a trusteeship administration, the Soviet Union administering the peninsula north of the 38th parallel and the United States administering the south." It was not the U.N., rather the 1945 Allied Moscow Agreement that arranged for the introduction of U.S. and Soviet forces to a joint 5 year Trusteeship of Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Conference_(1945)), followed by nation wide elections. According to the U.N. Charter, Chapter 7 Article 107 (http://legal.un.org/repertory/art107.shtml), the U.N. had no jurisdiction over post WWII Allied military/peace arrangements, that is no jurisdiction in Korea whatsoever until after 1950, the southern only elections organized by the U.S. and U.N. in 1947 in direct violation of the U.N.'s own Charter, the Moscow Agreement, and international law. The partition of Korea was illegal, not to mention unjust. Giving it a false veneer of U.N. legality is deception.

Steven Trop Steven Trop (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dokdo

Add information that Dokdo, in addition to Jeju island, is overtly South Korean territory. Dokdo is resided by only South Korean people and guarded by Armed Korean Police. Sdwarcht (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the hierarchy of expression of East sea

This is an wikipedia page about Korean peninsula. Also East Sea is Korean Maritime Territory that South Korean Government use officially. Thus you have to change and adjust the current description of it. Put “the sea of japan” in parenthesis instead of putting East sea as is. For example: East Sea (the Sea of Japan). Sdwarcht (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree

Whether this article is connected with Korea or not, the term "Sea of Japan" should be used following the international custom since this is an English Wikipedia. Instead, the term "East Sea" which is a term in common use in only Korea should be used in Korean Wikipedia alone. Please refer to the previous instance. "East Asia/Southeast Asia :: Korea, South". Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
Eddal (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is at WP:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. Eddal (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

Please switch the order of the second and third sentences in the introduction, so that it reads:

  • Korea is a region in East Asia.
  • Korea consists of the Korean Peninsula, Jeju Island, and several minor islands near the peninsula.
  • Since 1948 it has been divided between two distinct sovereign states, North Korea and South Korea.
  • Korea is bordered by Russia to the northeast, China to the northwest, and neighbours Japan to the east via the Korea Strait and the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

(Perhaps also merge "Korea is a region" and "Korea consists" into one sentence.) There are two description sentences ("region" and "consists") and two geopolitical, and the pairs of sentences should be next to each other instead of being mingled. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another request

Also, please reword Dokdo so that it reads 

Korea and Japan still dispute the ownership of the Dokdo islets, which are located east of the Korean Peninsula.

The current version "Dokdo, islets" looks unusual at best. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done WP:MINOR. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Food Section Citation?

Does the section on Korean Food need citations? "Koreans traditionally believe that the taste and quality of food depend on its spices and sauces, the essential ingredients to making a delicious meal. Therefore, soybean paste, soy sauce, gochujang or red pepper paste and kimchi are some of the most important staples in a Korean household." - who says that Koreans believe this? It seems more of an opinion. BLeverich (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of was: Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge to Geography of Korea.
— — — — —
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge. Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Korean Peninsula be merged here. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles. This issue was discussed before: a proposed move of "Korean Peninsula" to Geography of Korea in 2012 and a proposed merge of "Korea" to "Korean Peninsula" (apparently) last year. However, I think the problem has not been resolved. Most articles that link to "Korean Peninsula" use it as a synonym for "Korea" (including both North and South). If you oppose this, please to not use semantic arguments. We know that "Korea" and the "Korean Peninsula" are not the same thing. The question is why do we need two articles? How are these articles supposed to be differentiated?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been no response to this. I therefore carried out the merger according to Wikipedia rules. A few editors have reverted the merger without discussing it. So let's have a proper discussion as to why it shouldn't be merged.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Any subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of this template can be found here.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Add Arirang as the Sporting anthem for the whole Korean Peninsula. Mtonna257 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As discussed with GenQuest, I have reinstated my redirect of "Korean Peninsula" to "Korea". See the discussion "Merger proposal" above. I have not added any material to this article because the material that I added in December 2019 was not removed. What the dissenting editors did was resurrect "Korean Peninsula" without reversing my edits here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per the reasons stated above. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this discussion is closed. There was ample time to make a reasoned contribution. You have a source which says Korea equals the Korean Peninsula plus islands. But as you say, the islands contribute very little to the overall area. There seems no reason to have a separate article on the peninsula, even if you accept that it is not exactly the same as the peninsula. The existence of the peninsula is clearly explained here. We do not need an article about every distinct entity. This article can easily cover Korea, the Korean Peninsula, and the Korean islands.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirect of Korean Peninsula

Recent Merger proposal above closed as merging to Korea. However Korean Peninsula is an article of geography while Korea is an article of state. I propose Korean Peninsula be redirected to Geography of Korea. See past discussions.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article Korea should focus on aspects like the history and culture of the region (human geography), the article Geography of Korea should focus on the political and physical geographies of the area while the article Korean Peninsula should focus on the geology and geomorphology of the geographic feature. We shouldn't mess them up. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some sense in redirecting "Korean Peninsula" to "Geography of Korea". I think the problem is that if you look at "What links here" for the peninsula page, you will see that many of the links (I think most) derive from "Korean Peninsula" as a synonym for "North and South Korea". And this is the common way these days that "Korean Peninsula" is used, as you can see from a simple Google search. I wish people would just say "Korea", but many people don't. Hence, that redirect would be completely misleading. Readers wanting to read further about the Korean conflict would be redirected to a page about the environment.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a history of consensus not to merge on the page in question and then a redirect edit happens without the good faith inclusion of the redirect discussion on the page that is to be redirected, but Jack Upland accuses of a lack of consensus. I find that ludicrous! Proposals for merge and redirect are supposed to be notified in the talk of both pages with the discussion carried out on the one most affected. Jack Upland's notification on the redirected page occurred the day he implemented the redirect(diff). I came looking for the page on the Korean Peninsula and got redirected to some wannabe unified Korea article with a fictional Korean flag. If your argument is "What links here", then maybe those links are the issue for modification rather than this redirect which makes no sense to this editor. GreyShark09's comment in the last merger discussion in 2018, is actually my impression of the Korea article even before I read his statement. It may not actually be about a future unified Korea, but it certainly reads as if it was preemptively created specifically to be ready for such an occurrence. Which makes this redirect appear to be part of an agenda rather than any prudent encyclopedia pruning. I have a very hard time assuming good faith here. It would have also been more appropriate for this discussion to happen on the redirect talk page, rather than this one since there is no impact here. --Born2flie (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korea&oldid=995056153"