Talk:China–North Korea border

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

China This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Korea Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chinese–Korean border fence was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 October 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into China–North Korea border. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Chinese-Korean border fence page were its talk page . (17 October 2014)

.

The first paragraph says the border is 1,352 km, while the section under border security says it is 1,420 km. This may result from differing measurements, like if you start at the mouth of the Yalu or include the sea border perhaps, but should we not aim for consistency here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.204.134 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the border fence article for deletion, and as a result of that discussion it has now been merged into this one. I have edited the merged material to try to extract the specific extent of the fencing. I would like to reiterate my objections to the claim that there is a border fence. What we have is various reports over the past decade, with a degree of discrepancy, that there are (or have been) fences of between 10-20 km. The location of these fences appears to be largely in the area of Dandong. The North Korean fence of 2007 is reported to be on a tributary of the Yalu, but I think this is a mistranslation and it actually means a stream in the delta, i.e., near Dandong. Some of these fences are reported as replacing other fences, but charitably we could imagine that these reports indicate fencing of up to 60 km near Dandong. This is nothing like a border fence along the whole thousand kilometre border. Moreover, it would be radically impossible to fence off the waterfront in Dandong and other areas. The local people use the river for transport, recreation, fishing etc. My photo of the border near Dandong in 2012 (added to the article) shows no fence on the Chinese side and a domestic fence on the North Korean side. There is a photo in the 2014 SBS article that shows a Chinese fence at the same spot, but this fence is not very substantial. It is certainly nothing like 4m high! It is quite possible, in any case, that these rather sensationalist reports are inaccurate. It is quite possible that fences that were built several years ago have been removed, whether by flood damage, policy change, or some other reason. Notably, in my picture, there are some fence posts on the Chinese side. I have also found a photo on the Internet of the same spot with a higher fence from some years back. The point is that there doesn't seem to be a fence (or fences) of any great extent or permanence. There seems to be the understandable assumption that there is a fence somewhat like the

Another point on border security is that it is possible to view the satellite photos of the border near Dandong via Google Maps. This clearly shows fields, homes, and roads right up to the riverbanks on both sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why under "Gallery" do we have a series of maps which don't give a good view of the border?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: removed, and was also a bad way to organize imgs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop and Jack Upland: I would like to know by what criteria the series of maps I have added (under the name 'maps' now) A) "don't give a good view of the border" and B) are organized in a bad way. It is my contention that the maps (from the International Map of the World series) are well organized (north to south) and the view of the DPRK-PRC border is clear (shown as a broken line / line on all three maps). I have changed the name of the section from "Gallery" to "Maps". Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Finnusertop's comment, I have reorganized the maps from west to east such that it is now possible to see where the second and third maps "line up". It is entirely within the realm of good sense to provide the readers with maps on the page for a border, and if we are going to give a map or two, then let's give some good old historical ones at the bottom of the page (maybe some MS Paint ones or .svg at the top of the page). Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop and Jack Upland: Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to see what you thought about the current set up I have for these maps. I want to provide the readers with this invaluable historical resource but also let them know that things today may not be quite the way they are on these maps (for instance, Heaven Lake was apparently divided between the PRC and DPRK in secret agreements in the '60s.) I want to be even handed and fair and give the English-speaking world a window on to how professional mapmakers thought about this border area during the 20th century Cold War period. Thanks for any help or comments you can make on this. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still don't like it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: Thank you for your feedback. In response to your criticism, I have tried to increase the nuance in wording ('historical maps') and place the maps more clearly as products of the US gov- let me know what you think. I think these maps are vital to making the English language Wikipedia more useful to readers interested in this topic. Among those people who are interested in this topic, there may be some (including academic researchers) who want to know how the geography was understood at that time among the professionals who were making maps for the English-speaking world. Giving the readers these maps will make Wikipedia more interesting to the type of people we want editing Wikipedia: the experts who want to see this kind of material. Also, this map series is a free resource that people can download/repost/edit at will, unlike other proprietary maps. Therefore I think this is truly a critical resource and I want find a way incorporate it into the page permanently so that will not be rejected by editors like yourself in the future. Let me know what you think needs to be done. I could potentially break it up into individual maps and put those on the right side of the page. Thanks again for your time and editing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Sorry to ping you on a relatively sensitive topic like this, but I just want to ask if you see any remaining problems with the way that the historical maps I have added are being presented. Thanks for any specific comments/criticism or help you can give me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any further specific problems or issues, then I will attempt to work with you all and address those issues so that the encyclopedia can be enriched. Otherwise I consider the issue settled and the maps a permanent fixture on this page as an invaluable historical record of English-language maps of the region from the Cold War period, inherently valuable and important to the English-speaking community. My main take away from this discussion is that I learned to give these kinds of historical maps a more nuanced presentation. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]