Talk:Jeju Island

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Korea High‑importance 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. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efrobe8700 (article contribs).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Jeju Island was copied or moved into Jeju Province with this edit on 06:29, 5 March 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Hi, Can someone explain to me how/why Jejudo is considered "on the Korean peninsula"? Isn't an island by definition not "on" any peninsula since it's surrounded by water on all three sides?

Thanks. 2601:146:C000:D141:64C3:7B7B:A501:D565 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

During the Korean War the island was used to house Chinese Prisoners of War in two different camps, one for those who claimed to be Communist and wanted to be returned to North Korea when the was was over. The second camp was for Anti-Communist Chinese whose goal was to be sent to Formosa when the war ended.

During operation Big Switch, all were given their choice of where to go.

The island also used as a basic training camp for South Korean recruits.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I was there when the war ended.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.120.64 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]

Added a reference to Quelpaert Island and its name as Ilha de Ladrones which was reverted by User:Pocketthis for, hilariously, being in the academic Journal 'Isis', which is apparently a front for the Islamic State. When their mistake was pointed out, several spazzy edits later, the information was removed again, because the user did not read the citation. I'm providing it here, to prevent further damage to this article.

The most comprehensive and reasonable explanation is, however, offered in the introduction to Hendrik Hamel's famous report, issued by the Linschooten Vereeniging. The editor, B. Hoetink, had of course the benefit of the preceding two attemptsof explanation, but he also made a more systematic investigation into the problem than either one of the earlier writers.

According to him, Quelpaert Island was known to the Chinese of the 7th century as Tan-Lo, since the beginning of the Ming Dynasty (I368-I644) as Chi-Chou, or Tsee-Tsioe, and in European maps of the 17th century was called Fungma.6 The earliest western navigators in those parts, the Portuguese, evidently obtained a rather poor impression of its inhabitants, since they called it "Ilha de Ladrones" (isle of beggars). After Hamel's journal became known, the name of Quelpaert was gradually accepted, although in many early maps the island retained the name of Ilha de Ladrones.

The Name of Quelpaert Island Infocidal (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As explained on my talk page sir, you were reversed for not having a live link as your citation. You are taking all this way too personally. Now you are using the live link I researched in two places. One is correct, One shows no reference to it being called "beggar's Island". You also misspelled the main titles in the history list. My objection to ISIS was that it was in the history list on the page, as the citation, which was not a link to anywhere. Now you've learned how to use a live link from coping my work, but, you are directing the name: "Beggar's Island" to my link that only verifies the name Quelpaert Island (see below). Not trying to insult you....just trying to get the info in the article correctly. That is the intention of all of our collaborations. You didn't need to come here, we were getting it handled on my talk page, and I think you are here because of some ego issue. Let's just get it right, and get back to work. One more thing: The link you "Are Providing here"... as you pointed out above, "Is the link I researched", and gave "you". Anyone clicking that link above, will see that it explains Quelpaert, and no reference to "Beggars Island". That's why I removed Beggars Island in the list. The link for "The Name of Quelpaert Island"= http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/348077?journalCode=isis The info you wrote above about the 7th century Chinese sounds great, and it's probably correct, but it's still not referenced and cited in the article yet. Hopefully, you will find a live link reference for it, and apply it, and just use the one I gave you for Quelpaert island. Good luck- Pocketthis (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand that the link goes to an academic article, which displays the first page of that article, not the entirety of that article. If you read the entirety of that article, you will find the exact paragraph that I cited. If you do not read the entirety of the article, and only ready the first page of the article, you will be unable to see the information contained within the article, such as this paragraph. Stop vandalizing this page. Infocidal (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are very unique. I gave you that link, yet you say I am vandalizing it. I think you need to be removed from Wikipedia. I'll stay out of this article until an admin does the right thing here. Pocketthis (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

• Isis is a respectable academic journal, which was launched in 1912, ages before the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant came to existence. Any attempts to remove a reference to Isis because it appears synonymous with the Islamic State must cease and desist.
• I am not a linguist, but I used to speak some Spanish, and ladron would mean a thief to me, definitely not a beggar. I understand that we are talking not about the Spanish ladron (plural ladrones), but about the old Portuguese ladron; I don't speak either old or modern Portuguese, but upon a quick look I see no major difference - sources imply the aggressive meaning of thief, mercenary, rather than passive beggar (mendigo). I can't access full text of the Isis article [1] to see translation details. Materialscientist (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• My issue wasn't so much the reference to Isis, (however it did grab my attention) as is was that he didn't post a live link when referring to it. This was his citation, which takes you absolutely nowhere, even when the "ref" marks are in place: Sokol, A. E. "The Name of Quelpaert Island." Isis 38.3/4 (1948): 231-235. When I removed it because it wasn't a link, he went berserk, and showed up on my talk page harassing me over it. I tried my best there to calm the situation down, but then he escalated it, and brought it here. I'm done. I will remove the entire affair from my talk page and move on. Thanks as always for taking the time to arbitrate a situation. Pocketthis (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to add that any reference I made in my edit description regarding Isis, was pure ignorance on my part, and I apologize for that. However, it doesn't change the fact that the citation was bad, and needed to be replaced. That's what I ended up doing. Pocketthis (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed 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: moved. Jeju Island holds more common, although Jejudo is regarded as the correct Korean name, the most popular name of the place gets precedence. QEDK (愛) 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

The request to rename this article to Jeju Island has been carried out.

Jejudo → Jeju Island – Common name per Google Ngram. Also to be consistent with articles like Jeju Province or Jeju City. Timmyshin (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Jeju Island is definite. Sawol (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Otr500 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I have a good friend that was born and raised on Cheju-do prior to 2000. I am not a fan of using "Ngram", to try to determine a common name which should include current naming, especially when the graph shows dates from 1800 to 2008, and this is 2017. Name changes do need to be considered carefully with more than "definite" as reasoning. I cringe when I see descriptive titles like Jeju uprising, and I can't possibly see an historical event named using current naming, where there was no existence of the current name in 1948-1949. The "Jeju uprising" is historically and as recently as 2001 referred to as the The Cheju-do Rebellion (also named as such by JSTOR and "Project MUSE"), and acceptable as Chejudo Uprising, Cheju April 3rd Massacre (US Government), or Cheju Massacre, so I dig deeper than Ngram.

If one wishes to book a flight on Travelocity it would be booked as destination Jeju Island, or more appropriately Jeju, South Korea (CJU) on "Jeju Island". CNN references Jeju Island (제주도,濟州島), TripAdvisor uses "Jeju Island", lifeinkorea.com uses Jeju (Cheju) Island, South Korea (Cheju should also be in the lead as an alternate name, acknowledged as late as 2012) , and Expedia.com offers Jeju Island Vacation packages for 2017. All of the ferries (and there are several) will take a person to Jeju Island, also referred to as Jejudo. UNESCO has designated areas on Jeju Island as world heritage sites. The IUCN World Conservation Congress met on the Island of Jeju, Republic of Korea in 2012

I feel an in-depth search shows that in this case Jeju Island would be the correct name. Otr500 (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jeju Island.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 6, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-08-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Jeju Island is the largest island off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, and the main island of Jeju Province of South Korea. The island lies in the Korea Strait, south of South Jeolla Province. It contains the natural World Heritage Site Jeju Volcanic Island and Lava Tubes. Jeju has a moderate climate; even in winter, the temperature rarely falls below 0 °C (32 °F).Photograph: Robert Simmon

Archive – More featured pictures...

I suspect that this is a volumic tonnage (in tons of 100 ft^3), not a weight displacement (in tons of about 1000 kg).

I also feel strange that the name Cheju-Do under which I find the island on all the atlases does not appear in the name list at start

Is it of interest the form Quelpaerd that appears on the early-1900 texts (e.g. Stielers Hand-Atlas of Justus Perthes (Gotha) of 1906 [that contains also a german form Tsche-Dschu Insel] and in "The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, volume XI: Cyclopedia of Names; The Century Co 1913")

pietro151.29.25.24 (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did the "planned" visit to Jeju Island by Kim Jong-un ever occur? This section of the article (currently mentioning events only up to December 2018) should be updated, either to provide more details about the visit if it happened, or else to explain why it was called off if it didn't take place. I tried doing a quick web search but was unable to find any more details; hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject will be able to provide the correct info and suitable sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to flag this, but the section on the Jeju uprising is not exactly NPOV, especially the suggestions that American and "Japanese fascist" interests were central motivations of the atrocities committed. The main article linked from this section is more well written and covers the same events, perhaps we need a short, more neutral synopsis of that material here. Compwiztobe (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: gives two different sizes.

"... of 73 km east–west and 31 km north–south, with a gentle slope around Mt. Halla in the center. It is 181 kilometers wide and 258 kilometers long."

Encyclopedia Britannica gives another size (different spelling, same island): https://www.britannica.com/place/Cheju-Island

"Oval in shape, Cheju Island measures 40 miles (64 km) from east to west and 16 miles (26 km) from north to south. The island is composed of a core of volcanic material that rises".

Can someone check these?

thx Peter

Hi,

Should this article be merged with Jeju Province or at least made clearer how the two articles are related? I was looking for the history of Jeju island and was confused why there wasn't a section in this article. Turns out it was on the Jeju province article.

As far as I know, there aren't two articles on Greenland the landmass and Greenland the administrative division of Denmark. toobigtokale (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jeju Province#Merger proposal for Jeju Island, where I proposed similar, but it did not obtain consensus. There are unfortunately quite a few examples of such duplicated pages, but in this one the relationship was cleared up a little by using this article for geography. CMD (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha; thank you! I missed that. Maybe we should compromise by having more prominent links to the other page toobigtokale (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]