Talk:Division of Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community:  Discussion - Notice board Guidelines:  Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation:  Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: start quality , high priority.  Working group: History.
	Korea-related tasks: purge Create North Korea South Korea Korea North Korean Cities South Korea-India relations Districts of Seoul National Institute of Korean Language Wanghusa Garakgukgi Korea YMCA Ji Cheongcheon Battle at Luozigou Battle at Dadianzi Battle of Bongohdong Battle of Samdunja Sampo Waeran Byeongin Yangyo Goguryeo-Wei War Lelang Conquest Xienpei Campaign Guda-guk Galsa-guk Gaema-guk Hangin-guk Chunchong King Taejong Jeamri Jinju fortress Improve North-South relations Sports Tourism Communications North Korean Missile Test (2006) Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Gangpeh Jirisan Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe Korean architecture Gaya confederacy Samhan Goryeo Namsan (Gyeongju) Nangnang nation Korean royal court cuisine Bangjja Calligraphy Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Korean Liberation Army Independence movement Culture of Korea Korean martial arts Korean swords Korean nationalism Korean knife Korean armour (see also Pages needing attention and Stubs) Images North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Dong-A University Pohang Songguk-ri Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery Three Kingdoms of Korea Mongol invasions of Korea Goryeo-Khitan Wars Goguryeo-Sui Wars Military history of Korea List of monarchs of Korea Prehistory of Korea Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: ko:이범석 (1900년) ko:유관순 ko:이봉창 ko:박헌영 ko:김원봉 Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Complete List (edit)

Contents 1 Bias 2 NPOV 3 "newly liberated" 4 "civil war" 5 Editorials

[edit] Bias

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)

I read it over quickly and it looked okay. I don't think it's biased to say that Koreans got shafted by the bigger powers (China, Russia, Japan, the United States) over the years from 1890 to 1950... --Sewing 23:18, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag from this talk page, it should go on the article page, if still necessary. It was showing up in the NPOV dispute category. -- Kjkolb 07:40, 9 October 2005 (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 have reworded the sentence in a way I think it should be. Can somebody else remove the disputed tag if it is no longer necessary. Kokiri 12:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

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)

In the lack of any justification for the NPOV tag I suggest that it be removed in two week's time (eof August). Kokiri 07:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't see your statement here. My reasons are:

• Unofficial terms and references: "On 10 August 1945 there was a meeting of commissions of the ministry of the exterior, the ministry war and the ministry of marines."
• Given that there are two Roosevelts discussed in the article, full references need to be made in both cases.
• Numerous grammatical errors (probably due to ESL.) Granted, three two reasons are not what makes it NPOV. They're just errors that need to be fixed.
• "After the war between Russia and Japan in 1905 the American president Theodore Roosevelt "left" Korea to Japan and in return was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." What evidence is there of this? Even if the statement is true (I believe it to be an assertation), the wording is not NPOV. Also, it's not as if the Nobel Prize had much to do with Korea itself, but had more to do with the treaty ending the war.
• "The wording was FDR's work who was obsessed with the idea that the Asian countries needed to be educated before they could be led into independence." Same as above.
• "The Americans denied all attempts by Koreans to govern their land themselves. The only exception was Rhee Syngman who moved to Korea from the USA. His open anti-communism was music in the ears of the Americans." The assertation needs backing and clarification. I think we can do without cliches like this, which seem to be intended to tilt the reader's opinion. There are several like this.
• "The time allocated for this undertaking was half an hour, the officers had little knowledge of the area and used a National Geographic map to divide the peninsula along the 38th parallel." I think we need to see evidence of this before trusting that the assertation is true. The article also does not offer an explanation as to how that "decision" by the two officers/officials in question progressed up the ladder. It seems very difficult to believe that they would be allowed to make such a unilateral decision without having to justify it.

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)

I have seen the National Geographic story before (in The Two Koreas)... it's true. The "ministry" references should refer to the War Dept and State Dept (maybe the Navy Dept was involved, but I'm not sure). Syngman Rhee was vitriolically anti-communist, but I agree that there should probably be more fact, rather than just deriding American indifference toward Korea (AFAIK, the reality was more that Rhee was the only well-educated and well-connected Korean in the US at the time, and his hatred of communism only helped him become president). - Sekicho 23:37, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

More importantly, what government were these ministries mentioned in the first paragraph "meeting of commissions of the ministry of the exterior, the ministry of war and the ministry of marines" representing? US? Shermozle 18:53, Dec 13, 2004 (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?"

As far as I know there were not, though they had almost entered what is now North Korea. The US acted quickly--perhaps hastily--to declare the 38th parallel as the dividing marker out of fear that the Soviets would occupy the whole country.ThreeAnswers 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "newly liberated"

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))

"liberation" is widely used, as japanese rule was, objectively speaking, a forcible military occupation. see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Appleby 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, technically they were liberated from Japanese rule, as Iraq has been liberated from Saddam's rule. But what followed immediately was an occupation by U.S. forces in the south and Soviet-trained forces in the north.

Your first and second sources are the same and it refers to a U.S. occupation. From Chapter 1, South Korea under United States occupation, 1945-1948: "The three-year occupation by the United States of the area approximating present-day South Korea, following the liberation of Korea from Japan, was characterized by uncertainty and confusion." The fourth source claims Koreans credit Il-sung's army with liberation from Japan: "In 1937, Kim's "bandits" scored a major victory against Japanese forces stationed in Ponchonbo. North and South Koreans alike now celebrate the battle at Ponchonbo as a benchmark for Korean liberation from colonial Japan.", from which it would also follow that the U.S. was an occupier of a just-liberated nation, not an administrator of a "newly liberated" one. The third and fifth sources also speak of liberation from Japan, but don't go into the subsequent occupation of South Korea by the U.S. in the detail of the first and second sources, except to mention that there's still 37,000 U.S. troops there and that "President Kim Dae-Jung expressed his hope that the summit will also send a message to the surrounding powers that the two Koreas can handle their problems independently". History of North Korea refers to the occupation by the U.S. and S.U., but doesn't mention liberation.

I suggest rephrasing a passage from "South Korea: A Country Study" (your 1st and 2nd source) to replace the 2nd sentence of this article. Using the second and fourth paragraphs in your first link, it could be: "The United States and the Soviet Union agreed to temporarily share the country as a trusteeship, with the zone of control demarcated along the 38th Parallel."

In a more significant and more informative change using your first source, the first paragraph of the article would become: "The division of Korea into North Korea and South Korea stems from the 1945 Allied victory in World War II, ending Japan's 35-year occupation of Korea. In a proposal opposed by nearly all Koreans, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to temporarily share the country as a trusteeship with the zone of control demarcated along the 38th Parallel. The purpose of this trusteeship was to establish a Korean provisional government which would become "free and independent in due course." Though elections were scheduled, the two superpowers backed different leaders and two states were effectively established, each of which claimed sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula.[6]" (Cdetrio 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't take issue with any of your points except that to call Ponchonbo a benchmark in Korean liberation is, as far as I can tell, to greatly exaggerate its importance; the May 1st movement was far more important and frankly, I doubt that it is really 'celebrated' in the South. My reasons for thinking so are only based in my experience but in none of the independence celebrations I have seen, nor in the Independance Hall, have I heard of it. In any case, Japan occupied the peninsula to the last days of the War, so it's not accurate to call the US an occupier of a 'just-liberated' nation. But that's a minor quibble, so I see no problem with your proposed opening paragraph.--ThreeAnswers 14:18, 16 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)

[edit] "civil war"

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)

[edit] Editorials

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.

Editorials can indeed be cited. See WP:RS, first section: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion."