Talk:Geography of South Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Korea (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

hi[edit]

The duplicated notice by Sewing was moved to Talk:Dispute over the name Sea of Japan, not to make discussion scattered over Wikipedia.

The above unsigned comment was added by Nanshu. --Sewing 16:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sea borders[edit]

Excuse me, but I don't think South Korea borders on the South China Sea. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

You're right, it should be East China Sea. -- Visviva 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I don't understand the motivation for the proposed merge. Most of the information here, and much that should be added, is unique to the country (for example, maritime claims, highest elevation, area). The same can be said for Geography of North Korea. -- Visviva 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

How about the wrinkles? Korea has been called a "mountainous land". Can you name 5 things about the two Koreas which distinguish them geographically? I can think of lots of things they have in common:
  1. they share a peninsula
  2. they border on the same seas
  3. they fish in at least 2 of those seas
  4. they each have a lot of mountains (and look wrinkled from the air)
  5. their villages and cities were ravaged by the Korean War

And this is just off the top of my head; lemme go study the 2 articles now... Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 14:12 (UTC)

All true, but
  1. They have different areas
  2. They have different highest points and chief mountains
  3. They have different maritime claims
  4. They have different political geographies
  5. They have different rivers and bays
As I mentioned somewhere, the stuff that the two Koreas have in common geographically -- basically, the Korean peninsula -- should be covered in Korean peninsula, or in daughter articles such as Taebaek Mountains. The peninsula article could use some expanding, and so could this one, but that's another matter. -- Visviva 17:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Visviva. These articles don't need to be merged. They are two separate countries, so we don't need to combine them. Masterhatch 12 July 2005

We also have an article on the Korean Peninsula. So, support Visviva's argumentation. Kokiri 20:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


Because Koreans want everything in the world in English named the way they want it, and because in my opinion, Koreans in general are like children who cry bitterly when they fail to get their own way, I am giving the Koreans and Korean proponents what they want. And, they can see just how preposterous [sic] it is to be so self-centered and so self-absorbed as if Korea is the only country in the world. Kojangee July 14th, 2005 09:50 Beijing Time
Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Visviva 02:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the merge can be taken off this page. There is no need to merge these articles. Does anyone object if I take the merge sign down? Masterhatch 13 August 2005

No one has said anything, so I will remove the merge from this article. Masterhatch 15 August 2005

Question, please help.[edit]

Is the Taebaek-Sanmaek and Nangrim-Sanmaek simply the northern and southern divisions of the Baekdu-daegan? In other words, do Taebaek and Sangrim collectively form the Baekdu-daegan? --Bentonia School 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, both North Korean "Nangrim" and South Korean "Taebaek" consist of 'Baekdu Daegan' - the great continuous range from Mt. Baekdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.24.223.121 (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 Wonderufl Good Idea Topography  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.162.253 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 

Hey my teacher (Corean) is angry that you list the name as the Sea of Japan. Also you show our beautiful Island of Dokdo as a Japan Island. This is so terrible and makes Coreans very many anger. Please get a better map that is not so crazy. My question is why you do this? You should make this a neutral article. Also, as everyone here knows the Han River is more long than any other of our great river. What is wrong with you? Please change this becuase you are wrong. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.217.235.129 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kusunose[edit]

Why are you, a Japanese programmer, changing the edits made by me (a Korean) on the Article: "Geography of South Korea"? In particular the changes I made were to edit the disputed name of the Sea of Japan to "East Sea". As it is the official position of the KOREAN government that the name of that body of water should be the "East Sea", and since I did indeed quote a credible reference pertaining to the dispute over the name (another Wikipedia article), it should be left intact. Furthermore, since the article is about the geography of South Korea, it stands to reason that the naming conventions should respect what the Korean people, and the Korean government officially recognize it as, especially as there is a large amount of evidence supporting either naming convention (depending on which international maps, Chinese, Korean, European, or Japanese you refer to). In any case, it seems to me that since the article is not concerning Japan, but rather the "Geography of South Korea", you should respect the wishes of the vast majority (if not near unanimous) population of Korea and the Korean government. Please do not undo my changes again.

Dr. J Choi, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.95.73.252 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2009 (

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Per the guildlines, we primarily use "Sea of Japan" (the article title; the most common, unambiguous name recognizable by English speakers) and mention "East Sea" in Korea-related articles. If you disagree with them, please raise the issue at the respective talk pages. --Kusunose 05:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Image (Map) edits and Tag[edit]

The inset map has had different changes in its history. Following NPOV, we should be consistent and use "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" as the proper designation in the map (not necessarily this one) which accompanies the article. I have tagged the image description as editorializing. Can a more knowledgeable/skillful/enterprising editor create a new NPOV image please? (We are restricted from modifying the existing image.) Also note that Sea of Japan naming dispute is part of the article. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Carroback, for your recent edit. As the map now correctly uses the term "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" I have deleted the editorializing tag.--S. Rich (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarify this?[edit]

In the section on the DMZ: "from the east to the west coasts for a distance of 241 kilometers (238 kilometers of that line form the land boundary with North Korea)." What happened to the last three kilometers?

--128.189.171.206 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)