Talk:Yalu River

NPOV
Japanese Occupation of Korea is non-NPOV and unreasonable. I prefer more neutral Japanese rule of Korea.

"occupation" in that sense means
 * Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces. --American Heritage

Japan's administration of Korea, which was decided by the treaty of annexation, included both civil and military ones. In addition, "occupation" sounds temporal control to me, but Japan planed permanent rule. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * "Japanese rule" sounds just as bad, for the opposite reason: it seems to legitimize the 35-year period of colonial rule. Every word that describes power relationships has connotations of justification or protest. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't see why "rule" legitimizes Japan's administration. "rule" is more accurate than "occupation".
 * 1a. Governing power or its possession or use; authority. b. The duration of such power.--Nanshu
 * Whatever. All I know is that the US "allowed" Japan to take control of Korea in 1905 through the Eul-Sa Treaty of Protection and that from 1910-1945 Japan exploited Korea like a colony. They tried to eliminate Korean culture, forbidding the use of Korean surnames and written language; they suppressed Christianity. Now you can call that 'occupation' or 'rule' as you wish. Just don't try to conceal what Japan did to Korea is all I ask. --Uncle Ed 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If Japanese Occupation is too contentious, maybe we should use the term Japanese Colonial Period. The term is used in some Korean and western academic sources, so it should be acceptable to most people (from my own personal POV, I can live with it).  Also, it more or less translates the two neutral Korean terms Iljeong sidae (&#51068;&#51221; &#49884;&#45824;; &#26085;&#25919;&#26178;&#20195;) and Ilje sidae (&#51068;&#51228; &#49884;&#45824;; &#26085;&#24093;&#26178;&#20195;) which mean "Japanese government period" and "Japanese imperial period" respectively.  --Sewing 00:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Sound cho-wa-yo (good) to me. Let's put some text at Japanese Colonial Period, then. But I'd like to hear what Nanshu thinks, too. I hope the 3 of us can find terminology that we can all agree on. --Uncle Ed 13:36, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I added text and moved the article to Japanese Colonial Period (Korea) to clarify the title. --Sewing 22:47, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm busy for a couple of days. I have no objection to Sewing's motion. --Nanshu 23:22, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Eh, you're just wrong.


 * "Japanese rule of Korea" is barely English and isn't neutral in the least. The neutral and  name of that period is the Japanese occupation of Korea. That said, it's not where our article currently is so following our article's phrasing as a matter of house style is fine. —  Llywelyn II   11:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Link
Changed "Baitou Mountain" to "Beakdu Mountain" since its article shows "Beakdu Mountain" --dandan

Two bridges ?
The image of the bridge, and the half completed bridge, shows a caption of "Two Bridges" when the photograph clearly shows both the completed bridge and the half bridge. Caption Two bridges crossing the Yalu, when in fact there are only one that crosses, so its either the two bridges ON the Yalu, or The Yalu crossing at Dandong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.142.172 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have amended this. The other bridge, the "Broken Bridge", was damaged in the Korean War and not repaired.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye River
The article on "Corea" in the 9th edition of the Britannica includes the passage
 * Corea is well furnished with rivers and streams. In the north the boundary line is mainly marked by two of considerable size, the Ya-lu-kiang and the Mi-kiang. The former, known to the Chinese as the Aye-kiang, and to the Coreans as Am-no-kang, or the river of the Green Duck, receives numerous affluents in the early part of its course, flows first north-west and then south-west, and falls into the Yellow Sea by three distinct mouths. Its most important tributary, the Tong-kia-ula, comes from the Shan-alin Mountains in Manchuria, and forms its junction about 40° 50′ N. lat.

So... obviously the "Chinese name" of the Yalu is "Yalu" and the etymology is a straightforward mistake. Ya-lu-kiang is just the 19th century version of Yalu Jiang, like Mi-kiang is the Mijiang, Am-no-kang is the Amnok Gang, and Tong-kia-ula and Shan-alin are Manchu names. But what the heck is the "Aye-kiang"? This article has no idea; the rest of Wiki has no idea; Baidu has no idea; Baike.com has no idea; Google is only able to point out that Britannica is cribbing Alexander Williamson's Journeys in North China...

I assume that it was Williamson misreporting a traveler to Andong or Uiju talking about the Ai (靉河, Àihé, "Misty Creek"), one of the Yalu's major right-hand tributaries, but is there any record of the Chinese using that name for the lower courses of the Yalu? — Llywelyn II   15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Amnok Ocean"
Was the Yalu River ever called the "Amnok Ocean" in Korean? I can't find any sources (except Wikipedia) that use this term. Jarble (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't speak to the specifics but generally speaking garbled translations like that tend to come from languages that are using something like 水 to cover any body of water as a general term. Sometimes you get things like 海 that get used to cover 'body of water I can't see the other side of', like how it got applied to various lakes as a calque of Mongolian words.


 * On the other hand for some reason the sea near the Yalu seems to have had part of the river's name for some reason, at least on Ming-era updates of Song and Yuan maps. — Llywelyn II   04:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)