Talk:Korea/Archive 6

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.   Db<i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant that to be a reply to the original post. --Khajidha (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's not how the rest of the world sees the situation.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  09:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * The better question is whether 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * For quite some time the lead had read Korea is a historical country..., 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)
 * "historical country" was a claim with no credible source whilst "region" wasn't. Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sources?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)

Merger
As discussed with, 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)
 * Oppose As per the reasons stated above. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021
Under the Etymology section in the Korea article, are the names of both countries.

Korea North Korean name Chosŏn'gŭl	조선 Hancha	朝鮮 Transcriptions South Korean name Hangul	한국 Hanja	韓國

Under South Korea's name is says, "한국". This is not South Korea's name, this is what South Korea calls the peninsula. Where it says "한국", it should be replaced with "대한민국" which is the official name of the Republic of Korea. AV alexander (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the name for "South Korea" that's listed; it's the term for "Korean language." So it should be 한국어, not 대한민국. I don't whether North Koreans refer to "Korean language" as 한국어 or by some other term. FYI, the article for South Korea is listed as 대한민국. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
"change 'Independence from Japan and South-North division : 2 September 1945' to 'Independence from Japan and South-North division : 15 August 1945'" Ipswan72 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  03:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un as President of North Korea?
Until we have good sources saying Kim is President of North Korea, we shouldn't say he is. Clearly he is designated as the President of State Affairs, but he is not designated as President of North Korea. See this North Korean website:. I don't doubt he has been called President Kim, just as he has been called Chairman Kim. But he is not called President of North Korea, as far as I can see. Please don't edit war over this, but present sources if they exist.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Partiality by only showing holidays in one of the countries
The end of the article just shows the holidays in South Korea, omitting the North Korean holidays. What could be changed? Either add a section for North Korean Holidays, have a list of common holidays, or remove the section entirely0. Baboogie (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"North and South Korea" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect North and South Korea. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hh
Korean 114.79.170.247 (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * please take time to read WP:SOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.101 (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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)



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. Eddal (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The convention is at WP:Naming conventions (Korean). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. Eddal (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You mis interpret IHO. Old Third Edition is no longer the offical nautical chart. So In the 4th Edition of Offical nautical chart, there is no name such as "Sea of Japan". It is still in dispute. Why Wikipedia follow wrong misconceptions? RoadExpander (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

International custom has changed to follow the local national custom such as Google is using East Sea in Korea, Sea of Japan in Japan. If Wikipedia articles on Korea, why should you introduce as Korea officially use? Wikipedia is not an authority of naming organization, but introducing what there is as it is. Google’s Primary Local Usage Policy should be a model that the other cartographers have to follow, waiting for the adoption of a name acceptable to all parties concerned. RoadExpander (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Sea of Japan" is alive and well - someone changing a rule in a book very, very few people even know about, let alone read, is not going to change the common name, which this Wikipedia uses 50.111.41.101 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 18 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeremy Chi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

East Sea is the name used in Korea.
Sea of Japan is what Japan argues that it's right, but the official name of the sea on the East side of Korea is 'East Sea'. No one in Korea calls it as Sea of Japan, therefore the name on this page on KOREA should be fixed to East Sea. If you look up the page on JAPAN, there is stated only Sea of Japan without (East Sea) as is on the KOREA page. 174.20.108.14 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You are exactly correct. The name should have written as East Sea(Dong Hae) as is commonly used in both Koreas. Sea of Japan is only Japanese insist to call. RoadExpander (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Virtually everyone besides Korea calls it "Sea of Japan" - this is the historical name and the WP:Common Name ... also, drive-by RoadExpander - learn our Talk Page conventions about indenting - thank you 50.111.41.101 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

wsg with it gang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.102.166 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia convention is at Naming conventions (Korean). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2333 BC?
The founding date of Gojoseon is still controversial, I don't think we should use mythology as a landmark. Panma50 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not knows as three kingdoms "of Korea"
The opening lines of the bulk paragraph is misleading readers to think that the three kingdoms were -at the time- for them, knows as "of Korea". They were absolutely not. They are describe this way -today- but the paragraph begins by setting a time frame and then makes an unfortunate continuation without distinguishing between the past and the present.

Something with permission to alter needs to clarify this. 83.248.229.113 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is explained in the course of reading the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Link to other Wiki page
Under "Science and technology" section, "The earliest known surviving Korean example of woodblock printing is the Mugujeonggwang Great Dharani Sutra" statement has incorrect link of "Mugujeonggwang Great Dharani Sutra". It links to 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seokgatap#National_treasure_No.126'. However, it should link to 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Dharani_Sutra'. Juniverse.kim (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022
Change “chistian” to “christian” under the religion section. 158.140.240.25 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Current President of North Korea and President of South Korea
Hello. The article doesn't say who the current presidents of North and South Korea are currently. Can someone please tell me? I need them for a science-fiction book I'm creating. Faithful15 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They are listed in the infobox: South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Hope that helps. <span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">Yue 🌙 22:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * Talk:Korean Peninsula: Korean Peninsula → Geography of Korea result: No consensus
 * Talk:Korean Peninsula: Merge to Korea result: Not merge
 * Talk:Korea: Korean Peninsula be merged to Korea result: Merge
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * @Jack Upland Your comment is likely correct in that the most common use of "the Korean peninsula" is as a euphemism (? not sure what the right word is) for Korea...but I do think there's an issue with redirecting all links to the Korean Peninsula to Korea, and then not providing readers easy access to the article Geography of Korea...while there is a geography section, which has a hatnote to it, its buried under a quite long history section and the Korea (disambiguation) page doesn't link to the geography of Korea article at all. It all feels strange because I know if "Korean peninsula" is wikilinked its more likely than not going to be someone wanting to link to Korea, but if someone tries to search Korean peninsula into the search bar its more likely than not going to be someone wanting to read the Geography of Korea article. Sorry for the ramble! Freedom4U (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2023 (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(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)
 * I think there is consensus that there is considerable overlap between "Korea" and "Korean Peninsula". I proposed a merger in December 2019, and the issue has been discussed since 2012. I don't see any alternative suggestions that have any possibility of lasting. This is not about a flag or a future unification of Korea. (And it is not viable to change all of the links to "Korean Peninsula".) It is about having an article about Korea that includes material that would exist in an article about the Korean Peninsula without having two almost identical articles. It is about common sense. That is the agenda that you are opposed to. Having a debate between 3 people every 2 years, or 2 people every 3 years, and changing and rechanging the articles makes no sense. If you want to pursue this, I think we need an RfC on this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Movable type
The movable type nonsense in the lede and in the article very much appears to be someone attempting to soapbox. There's six sources to it in the lede and it appears to be another instance of China - Korea - Japan quarreling about the origin of various technologies and the like. The information isn't false (as far as I can verify), but for over 3,000 years of history to cover, its most definitely not worth mentioning in the lede. Further down in the article, it likewise reads The publication of the Tripitaka Koreana onto more than 80,000 wooden blocks and the invention of the world's first metal movable type in the 13th century attest to Goryeo's cultural achievements. One mention of the movable type being invented during ths time would be enough for the whole article. That's all the weight it needs-- see how many mentions of the Gutenberg Press are in the Germany article.

There's many other parts of the article that that have likely been hit by soapbox accounts over the years. Two quick examples I've found being: : 3 F4U (they/it) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Historic evidence suggests that Japanese culture, art, and language were influenced by the kingdom of Baekje and Korea itself; which uses twelve sources
 * ...many Korean Buddhists gained great fame among Chinese Buddhists and contributed to Chinese Buddhism, including: Woncheuk, Wonhyo, Uisang, Musang, and Kim Gyo-gak, a Silla prince whose influence made Mount Jiuhua one of the Four Sacred Mountains of Chinese Buddhism.