Talk:Korean Peninsula

Hanja for peninsula

from google, korean language pages, -wikipedia:

• 한반도 returns 8.29 million korean language results
• 韓半島 returns 9,830 korean language results, many of them actually chinese or japanese language pages
• 조선반도 returns 136,000 korean language results
• 朝鮮半島 returns 708 korean language results, most of them actually chinese or japanese language pages

Obviously, the chinese characters are not generally used by either north or south koreans. Appleby 18:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You know nothing but referring to Google? South Korea still uses Hanja. Even the country's name is written in Hanja. It's traditional but not extinct.--77.1.173.70 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment China uses "朝鲜半岛" to describe the Korean Peninsula. It is the most dominant Hanzi/Hanja translation of this geographical feature on the Internet. 120.16.231.111 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Korean language map

I do not think it is appropriate to use a Korean-language map that also has the Sea of Japan as "East Sea (Sea of Japan)". That is a Korean bias. In the English language, Sea of Japan is currently used more frequently and prominently than East Sea.

I am sure that there is another map that can be used in its place.--Sir Edgar (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There are some valid points about redundancy and scope, but that's something to be settled outside of the RM. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Korean Peninsula → Geography of Korea – This article seams to be about the Geography of Korea, and not the Korean Peninsula in general (the article about the Peninsula in general is Korea). As demonstrated by Geography of North America and North America we do have separate articles about geographic regions and the geography of geographic regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Korea is not the article about the Korean Peninsula, it is about the region called Korea. Since Goguryeo occupied territory north of the Peninsula proper, and the article on Korea covers it, it does not represent the peninsula, but rather the cultural region. As this article and that article are not geographically equivalent, you can't have a "geography of X" for a region not coterminous with the "X" article. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • This article is de-facto about the Geography of Korea (with the partial exception of the lead section). If the peninsula is a separate enough topic to warrant it's own article, this article ought to be moved to free up the title for an article about the peninsula.

    Also according to this article the Korean Peninsula and modern day Korea are coterminous. From this article: "The northern boundaries for the Korean Peninsula are commonly (and tacitly) taken to coincide with today's political borders between North Korea and her northern neighbors" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

    • The article on Korea is not restricted to the modern day, and Wikipedia is not limited to the modern day either. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Geography of Korea" however would be limited to covering the land that makes up modern day Korea. It's wouldn't cover the geography of the Non-Peninsula parts of Goguryeo. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• The article on Korea is not restricted to the modern day, and Wikipedia is not limited to the modern day either. Therefore the potential "Geography of Korea" would not be restricted to the modern Korea either, since it would have a historical section on former areas of Korea. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Mexico doesn't cover the geography of the South-Western United States, which used to be part of Mexico. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mexico is a country, Korea is not, it is a cultural zone. Further the Korean Peninsula is a specific geographic feature, not a country either. The Isthmus of Panama is not the country of Panama, nor a cultural region. Tibetan Plateau is not Tibet, nor Geography of Tibet. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That Mexico is a country is irreverent to my point, Geography of Korea would not cover Non-Peninsulr Goguryeo just as Geography of Mexico does not cover the South-Western United States. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

History of Panama. History of Panama covers both the country and the Isthmus, it's not two sepreate articles.

• • There is no "Korean cultural region" that exists north of DPRK-land, although there is a diasporic legacy of Koreans that were sent out by Imperial Japan to spy on the Soviet Union and to colonize occupied northeast China based on a genocidal Lebensraum-type policy that considered the area an "empty land" to colonize with Koreans while killing millions of indigenous Chinese. It's also really nonsensical to say Gaogouli "ruled territory north of the Peninsula", as if its Chinese territories were a colony, when it fact Gaogouli was based in that area and the Korean peninsula was the periphery. That's like saying Korea "ruled the Japanese archipelago" during the imperial period. In any case, while the Soviets had the sense not to create any "autonomous region" that would give Koreans a false sense of indigeneity, neither the Chinese themselves nor outside observers call those Chinese territories with large numbers of Korean immigrants and North Korean refugees any part of "Korea". So the issue of a "Greater Korea" beyond unification of ROK and DPRK is a non-issue. Shrigley (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Why are you restricting yourself to the modern day? Since when did Wikipedia only cover the modern day, and jettison historical coverage? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Also Goguryeo would definitely fall under the scope of the history of the Korean Peninsula, even tough it contained Non-Peninsula land. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Since the Korean Peninsula and modern Korea are 100% coterminous, this article should be moved to Geography of Korea (or merged with Korea) as this reflects the content of the article. —  AjaxSmack  04:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Note similar cases (Arabian, Balkan, Indochinese) listed below. I also support this move because articles largely about the physical geography of a place are usually called "Geography of..." Also see further discussion below. —  AjaxSmack  17:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Because this article is within the scope of physical geography, not of human geography. See also Template:Coastal geography and peninsula. What would be the lead sentences if the article name is moved? I think Geography of North America and North America are continent article and irrelevant to this article. Oda Mari (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much my point. This article is primarily about the physical geography, not the peninsula in general. Look at the Baja California peninsula article. It's not specifically about the physical geography, it's about the peninsula in general. Geography of North America shows that "Geography of" articles are primarily about the physical geography, tough they do include some human geography information. Here are a few more examples: Geography of Taiwan, Geography of Mexico, Geography of the United States, Geography of Israel. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Your examples are "Geography of (country name)". The articles equivalent to your examples are Geography of North Korea and Geography of South Korea. Oda Mari (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of "Geography of" articles that deal with entities that are not countries (or administrative divisions) such as Geography of South India, Geography of Long Island, and Geography of the Interior United States. With these and almost all other articles called "Geography of...", the text is devoted almost exclusively to physical geography. —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand. Geography of South India falls into a sub-category of Geography of India and it's a local/domestic geography article of the country. Geography of Long Island and Geography of the Interior United States are also local geography articles of the USA. I didn't say articles start with "Geography of" should be continued with a country name. I just pointed out that you used wrong examples.Oda Mari (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I understand what your point is. If I'm right, your original opposition is based on the fact that the current Korean Peninsula article includes only the physical geography and not the human geography of the area. User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman responded (and I agree) that this focus on physical geography is precisely why the article should be moved. Articles at Wikipedia titled "Geography of...", whether dealing with supranational, national, or subnational entities are almost always nearly exclusively about physical geography. If there is wider coverage of other aspects, the preface "Geography of..." is usually dropped. —  AjaxSmack  17:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The current setup creates unnecessary duplication, but I'm not sure the best way to fix it. AjaxSmack asserts that "the Korean Peninsula and modern Korea are 100% coterminous", but I think "Korea" is larger. For example, this map of Goryeo does not contain any less peninsular land, but just gobbled up less of northeast China. It's just that today, people use "Korean peninsula" as shorthand for "the territory ruled by DPRK and the territory ruled by ROK". Personally, I would like to see the article "Korea" - a nationalist fiction - not exist, and perhaps be a disambiguation page to "Korean peninsula", "Korean unification", "Japanese Joseon", etc. Shrigley (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • By the destination given on this article "The northern boundaries for the Korean Peninsula are commonly (and tacitly) taken to coincide with today's political borders between North Korea and her northern neighbors" Goryeo contains less peninsular land. That sentence, the map, and the figures that this article uses would seam to indicate that it's definition of Korean Peninsula is 100% coterminous with modern Korea. Your entitled to your opinion of where the peninsula's boundaries are, but it's just your opinion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But even by even by your definition the differences between the Peninsula and modern Korea probably wouldn't be enough to warrant separate "Geography of Korea" and "Geography of the Korean Peninsula" articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Note other cases of peninsulas with more than one constituent state. Wikipedia usually does not host two main articles (Arabia/Arabian Peninsula; Indochina/Indochinese Peninsula) if the two terms are largely coterminous (and sometimes even if not as with Balkans/Balkan Peninsula), correctly seeing such a division as a content fork. Since others have opposed merging Korean Peninsula with Korea in the past, the nominator's solution of making this article a subarticle of Korea (like History of Korea) makes the most sense to avoid duplication. —  AjaxSmack  17:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
      • That makes little sense, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. We can cover distinct geography regions under their geographic names, with proper geologicial and geographical information, and their geologic history and tectonic development. As most geographic/geologic regions are different from ethnological/ethnohistorical or political divisions, they should be covered in articles concerned with their topics. We have many articles on geologic provinces that are not at all concerned with the ethnological or political divisions of the region. If the topic is notable, why shouldn't it receive a specialized article, should sufficient information be available? Conflating geo- regions with ethno- and politico- regions would not delineate clearly what each are. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. And, as I and others have noted, Geography of Korea is the best title to describe the current article's contents. —  AjaxSmack  06:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
          • That conflates the geographic region "Korean Peninsula" with the cultural/political region "Korea", which although currently very similar in extent (minus several islands the Koreas argue about with their neighbours, etc), is not historically the same. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
            • This article itself "conflates" the geographic region with the modern-day cultural/political region. It's map and figures and primary destination show the Peninsula as being the same as modern-day Koreaa. It's not worth having two separate "Geography of Korea" and "Geography of the Korean Peninsula" articles. Historically is irreverent here because the geography because would only cover the Geography of modern-day Korea, which aside from a few islands is the same as the Korean Peninsula. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge

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 to not merge. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I have stumbled on the Korea article and couldn't pass the notion that it describes exactly the same as Korean Peninsula, though utilizing a very awkward template of "Geopolitical organization" (there is no organization including South and North Korea to date). Since the articles are essentially the same describing the geography region, naturally i propose to merge.GreyShark (dibra) 11:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - In case some editors think Korea article should refer to the "hypothetical future unified Korea" state, then this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL BALL policy and is not currently the main topic.GreyShark (dibra) 11:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge Good faith proposal, but I have a few reasons for disagreeing that this would be a beneficial move. This proposal is to move "Korea" into "Korean Peninsula" whereas the other way around would make more sense, but I'm not sure about that either. Korea goes far more in detail regarding the history and culture of the region, whereas Korean Peninsula is primarily focused on the geographic features, meaning Korea is more focused on the human, societal, or political aspects. I wouldn't merge the two; I would instead keep Korean Peninsula focused primarily on the peninsula itself. I wouldn't see any benefit, but I also don't see any common practices that would dictate we change this article's name to be like the rest of them; Crimea is just Crimea and not "Crimean Peninsula" despite being about the peninsula itself, but Kamchatka Peninsula uses the word Peninsula rather than just "Kamchatka." Based on that, it seems that more well-known or geopolitically significant peninsulas have an article with simply their name, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME, so a Korea->Korean Peninsula merge should definitely be off the table. Additionally, if we are to merge Korean Peninsula and any other article, I'd suggest Geography of Korea, but that's a different discussion for a different time. Cheers! Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Not all of Korea is on the Korean Peninsula. Specifically, Jeju and the other islands. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose see List of islands of Korea, the Korean Peninsula is a geographical feature, as are Jeju, Dokdo, etc, that are part of Korea. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. A region is a concept created by humans but a peninsula is natural therefore they are different. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly Korean Peninsula is a geographic concept while Korea is a political-ethnic-cultural concept which are fundamentally different. --123.161.170.169 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

Natural

This page barely talks about the natural features of the Korean Peninsula, despite the fact that is the purpose of this article. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 12:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Japan Sea, Yellow Sea vs. Korea-centric namings

WP:BRD discussion. I have restored my edit focusing on the more widely-known names. If you disagree, please discuss if you disagree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Restoration

I reckon that this article should be restored. 120.16.231.111 (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)