![]() | Division of Korea is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 27, 2008, and July 27, 2009. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I felt the act of dividing Korea itself needed a bit more substance. It is something I feel about strongly, so I'd be grateful if someone could check for bias... Also, can someone check whether I got all the military terms right? Kokiri 21:39, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The first paragraph is misleading. Korea was never under any trusteeship by the US or the Soviet. Tahon ( talk) 05:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"The U.S.-High Joint Commission held two sessions to discuss trusteeship over Korea, but they ended in a rupture. In February 1946, North Korea organized the provisional people's committee, a de facto unilateral government. - from The Chosun Ilbo,6/24/08, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200806/200806130015.html Tahon ( talk) 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"During the rule of the American military between 1945 and 1948 showed little interest in Korea."
Who showed little interest? The miliary? The civilian government? This sentence needs rewording. -- Golbez 05:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree completely that there are many NPOV problems in this article. Two that jump out quickly are:
-- The note that the first thing US occupation troops did was take control of the Japanese "comfort stations" and re-enlist the women there as "western princesses" -- prostitutes under a new euphemism. This smacks of the battles that erupted over the Angeles City, Philippines, article and that still make the talk pages for that article a guilty pleasure to read. Someone here has an agenda.
-- The emphasis in the section on 1945-50 history in the south is on atrocities and brutal suppressions. Compare that with the language used in the section on the north, where it appears that the social changes were bloodless and affected only the "old landed class." That section also implies that the bulk of the refugees fleeing south before the outbreak of the war were Japanese collaborators and landed gentry.
-- There is no mention of UNGA Res. 195 of 1948, which recognized the Republic of Korea as the only legitimate government on the peninsula.
-- In short and at a minimum, there are many questions of balance and of skirting still controversial questions through unsourced statements and selective citations. Tito john ( talk) 04:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It also sais Also many inaccuracies in proper names of agencies and departments. at the top of the article. Can someone be more specific? This way maybe we can fix this article... Kokiri 12:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Basically, it seems to me that the whole article was written by someone with a serious beef with the U.S. I will place the NPOV tag back since there is now an active discussion. - Joseph 02:06, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
IMO, I think the start of the article needs to be changed...I mean, it's very well written, but it's more suited to a documentary/film/novel type then an encyclopedic article. 65.32.82.139 00:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is something not clear in this article. I will recite the two passages that are contradictory to each other.
1."On 8 August 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan,..." "Soviet armies quickly over-ran Manchuria but then ran out of gas well short of the Yalu river."
2."Historical details of events after the invasion by Soviet troops on 8 August 1945 are incomplete outside North Korea. The Soviets took their position of power before their American counterparts. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, they arrived a month earlier."
So my question is the following: "Where there Soviet troops in Korea before August 10, 1945, the day the USA decided to divide Korea and give the northern half to the Soviet Union?"
To call a change of government a liberation is a matter of opinion, and should be attributed to some source if included. For example, although it is argued that the invasion of Iraq as an action was liberating, the article 2003_Liberation_Of_Iraq redirects. That it was claimed to be a liberation by the U.S. is only mentioned on Richard_Perle and Paul_Wolfowitz. I have placed a NPOV tag on the page hoping to see some discussion. ( Cdetrio 21:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
sounds good to me too, more informative, & the usloc country studies are generally decent sources. Appleby 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has the "Korean War" been renamed the "Korean Civil War"? It is rarely referred to that way, in English or Korean. South Korea also calls it the "Korean War", and North Korea calls it the "Fatherland Liberation War".-- ThreeAnswers 07:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You can't use editorials; editorials are inherently POV. Example:
"an editorial in the Chosun Ilbo told Hodge that the deteriorating economy was leaving the Korean people suffering more than any time under Japanese rule"
I think to make it NPOV we can write under Japan 6-7 million Koreans died and under Rhee 30,000 to 100,000 died, then let people decide for themselves how bad life was.
Following the news that North Korea has detonated a nuclear bomb, and that the Watchcon level on the S.Korean side of the DMZ has been stepped up to Stage 2 (Stage 1 - Open hostilities) (2009-05-28), shouldn't the article reflect such, especially in the introduction? At the moment it implies that both sides are working toward Unification. Which given the present climate - is hardly the case!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.214.23 ( talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make a proposal for the consolidation/rationalization of the various pages dealing with the conflict between North and South Korea:
This page Division of Korea is renamed Korean Conflict or something similar and becomes the overarching page dealing with the entire North-South Korea issue (similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict page). All incidents and incursions are removed from this page and placed in one of the following:
All the various specific incident pages e.g Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969) would be unchanged.
This would hopefully mean that each incident would be located on only one of the 3 pages (and on their specific page if they have one) and not duplicated across numerous pages. Mztourist ( talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
:Support merger (e.g., set up redirect) of KCW into this page per nom.--
S. Rich (
talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)--
S. Rich (
talk) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"North Korea . . . economy initially enjoyed substantial growth..." - when has the North Korean economy ever showed substantial growth by western standards? Perhaps the source was making a statement relative to before the Nineties - or something along those lines? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The section "2 Post World War II" should cover the period between 1945 and the outbreak of the Korean War, which is described in the subsequent section. But this section now talks about the 1980s and the 1940s in no particular order. This is most confusing. Move the 1980s information to the end of the article. -- LA2 ( talk) 14:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The section at the beginning of the American occupation seems out of the blue. Certainly, the relations between US GIs and the Koreans is worth addressing, but probably not in that first paragraph. Can someone more knowledgeable revise it?
Thanks, Samois98 19:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samois98 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Division of Korea. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Bruce Cumings in Korea's Place in the Sun (pp 186-187), Soviet troops began fighting the Japanese in Korea on 8 August, the Soviet Union agreed to the division at the 38th Parallel after 11 August, and some Soviet troops withdrew from the South after 15 August. However, according to the book by Michael Seth cited in the article, "Soviet forces had begun amphibious landings in Korea by August 14 and quickly overran the industrial north-east of the country; on August 16 they landed at Wonsan further down the coast." The article Soviet-Japanese War (1945) places the amphibious landings on August 18, as does Soviet invasion of Manchuria. So who is right?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As foreshadowed above, and discussed at the Korean War talk page and elsewhere, I have created a new Korean conflict page as part of a rationalisation of the multitude of pages dealing with the conflict. Now this page should be rationalised. I think it should concentrate the initial division of Korea. That is what the pages that link here largely refer to. The Korean War, North Korea, History of North Korea, and North Korea-South Korea relations all use this page as a main page for section dealing with the period 1945-1950. Therefore, I propose that this page concentrated on that period (which is already what half of the page is about), briefly describe the Korean War (as it does now) and then discuss the new border (but note that we also have the Korean Demilitarized Zone and related pages).
As for the rest of the existing page, "Post-armistice inter-Korean relations" is a summary of North Korea-South Korea relations. In addition, it has been tagged for POV and citations since 2013. "Post-division of Korea incidents" duplicates the List of border incidents involving North Korea and Korean maritime border incidents (which I have proposed merging). The exceptions are the subsections "Other incidents" and "Air incidents". I propose these incidents should be added to the "List of border incidents" page, perhaps as separate sections. After all, they do involve border crossings, and there doesn't seem to be any justification for treating them differently just because they occurred away from the DMZ. Alternatively, they could just be deleted, as they are minor incidents, with the exception of the EC-121 shootdown, which has its own article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of this article was thoroughly revamped at the end of 2015 (see the history trace), and the previous contents of the paragraph were removed altogether. This removal included the erasure of essential information about efforts done by eminent political circles (and thwarted by the United States Military Government) to establish a unified government. Lenmoly ( talk) 10:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the statement "On September 6, 1945, a congress of representatives was convened in Seoul and founded the short-lived People's Republic of Korea" is included just before the paragraph "Post-World War II". However, diminishing the key importance of this development, expelling it from the introductory paragraph of the article and failing to explain why the People's Republic of Korea was short-lived is not right. You said "I revamped the introduction because it was misleading". I am afraid that the latter phrase should refer to the revamped version, even though the revamped version also does contain some improvement. Lenmoly ( talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the present version of the article is fundamentally distorted. One fundamental distortion is embodied in the statement according to which the division of Korea is a result of the 1945 Allied victory in World War II. In fact there is no causal relationship between the end of the war and the division of Korea. The occurrence of event B after event A does not necessarily mean that event B is a result of event A. In this context it is important to mention the fundamental difference between Germany and Korea, the two countries which were divided after WWII: The division of Germany, which occurred after the allies approached from two sides in the framework of the war, was the result of the fact that Germany had initiated the war. In contrast to that, not only that Korea has never initiated any war, Korea was not even involved in the war. Korea's division did not come about in the framework of the war, but rather after all the axis powers had capitulated. Hence, there is no causal relationship between the war and the division of Korea. Another fundamental distortion in the article is the slighting of the serious efforts, done by the Korean people through their eminent political circles and eminent leaders, to construct a unified coalition government. These efforts were thwarted by an external power. The article evades from mentioning the pertinent external power, and only states that the efforts were "short-lived". Lenmoly ( talk) 12:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article. It has been tagged as "citation needed" since December 2015. I've looked at a few books about the period without finding a citation. It seems a bit unlikely that "Korean nationalists" paid this much attention to the Cairo Conference. The fact that Koreans opposed the trusteeship at a later date is obviously true, and is mentioned in the article, with citations. This sentence seems an anachronism.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This page seems to be missing information about historical divisions of Korea from before the 20th century. I'm not sure if "Division of Korea" is used for those contexts, but in any case they are literal divisions of Korea.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the article:
The first sentence refers to the Sunshine Policy, which has since been abandoned. The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. Kim Jong Il came to power in the 1990s, not in the 21st century, and the improved relations occurred during his period of leadership. Perhaps the editor who wrote that was thinking of Jong Un. In addition, Jong Il was never called "Eternal Leader". The source cited is not really about the division of Korea. As previously discussed, we do not need a running commentary here on North Korea–South Korea relations, which duplicates material from other articles.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Division of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify the recent edits: the Yalta Conference page says, 'Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan "in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated" '. There was no definite timetable. Stalin could have declared war on Japan earlier, but he waited to the last moment to fulfill his commitment. If we say he agreed to enter the war "after three months" it implies that his allies wanted him to wait three months. In fact, they wanted him to enter the war as soon as possible, but Stalin refused to fight on two fronts.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
OK - I think that should do it. I'm not convinced that the Yalta page is correct - I'm pretty sure that I've got an authoritative source that says that Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would join the fight against Japan "not later than 3 months after Victory in Europe" - but it's late, and I'd struggle to find it right it now (probably Alan Clarke is the base source, with him citing relevant documents). Jack Upland is correct that at the time of Yalta the US/UK etc wanted the Soviet Union to join them against Japan as soon as possible; but events changed the landscape very quickly during those 3 months.
It's a question of language - not of historical facts. There is a subtle difference between the three quoted options you give, and if we we were talking about any other conflict (ie one that was purely historical and not directly affecting the modern world) it wouldn't really be a problem. Nonetheless, you are correct that I was wrong to use "after three months" - which would have been misleading. The article is a difficult one to put into a NPOV. At the time of Yalta the UK/US wanted the Soviets to join the fight against Japan asap ("now" would have been nice!); the Soviets wanted to deal with the main problem (Germany) and have time to regroup to face the Japanese later (and, to be fair, Churchill also had a "Germany first" policy). By the summer of 1945 the whole landscape had changed. You're also right that the 38th parallel division was decided in a rush following the Soviet declaration of war and the rapid gains made by them thereafter. You say that Korea is the pivot point where WW2 became the cold war - I would say that Korea is both the first manifestation and the last remnant of the cold war. It is where the subtle change came from open conflict between the opposing powers to trying to grab the moral high ground - that is, where the conflict switched from arms to ideologies. As you say, the change happened after the Soviet declaration of war and the rapid gains they made in Korea - the US (rightly) realised that the impending result was that the Soviets would very quickly conquer the Korean peninsula. The problem is in trying to present this in a neutral way. There are some lazy unstated assumptions made in the article (for example, that the UN is a dispassionate observer and arbiter). IIRC At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea (in 1950) the Soviet Union had decamped from the UN in protest that the de facto Government of China (under Mao) was not recognised as the legitimate government of China. It's a difficult one - I need to give it some thought. But the key point is that, of all conflicts, this one (which is based almost exclusively on the use of language and rhetoric), we need to be very careful about how it is presented in an encyclopedia. You say "I have found it hard to find good historical sources" - me too. The problem is that this particular conflict is being fought IN the historical sources. This is Marshall McLuhan territory - the reporter is not just a participant, but is the main protagonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.24.231 ( talk) 01:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Division of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Division of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor recently objected to the word "insurgents", saying that the people involved were Korean. "Insurgents" does not mean "people who surge in" from outside. It comes from a French word insurger meaning to rise up. I'm happy for another word to be used, but "people they considered leftwing" isn't OK. These people were in revolt.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it should be used without a clear statement of whether Syngman Rhee can be viewed as an anti-communist activist. Is there a clear reason that Syngman Rhee is an anti-communist activist? Jhkang1517 ( talk) 05:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the lead to what it was. The recent edits created a lead that didn't follow the standard format. The opening paragraph didn't even explain what the topic was. Some of it was inaccurate — for example, Stalin wasn't fighting Japan at the time of Yalta. Some of it doesn't read neutral — for example, "...rather vague agreement...". It also had way too much detail, including detail that was pretty irrelevant. The lead is supposed to be an introduction to the subject, not an essay.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have shortened "US occupation of the south half of the Korean Peninsula" and its Soviet equivalent. I understand the point that using "North Korea" and "South Korea" could be seen as somehow anachronistic (though I'm not sure that it actually is), but that heading is too long. It is also anachronistic to use the term "Korean Peninsula". That term is only used these days for people who want to include both the DPRK and ROK. The expression "half" is also misleading, as in no sense was Korea halved.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Dec 11, 2022, 17:47 - «Undid revision 1126611660 by Alexander Davronov Not actionable; not a valid use of maintenance tags; incorrect edit summary "ce"); unclear what is being asked.»
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)