Talk:Division of Korea

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)

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)

There was no trusteeship established, so I have removed this from the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2015 (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)

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)

I have removed the reference to western princesses, who have their own article. It was given undue weight here. I have added a reference to the 1948 UN resolution. The history of rebellion and repression in the South is a fact, which is mentioned in several histories. I have added more citations, but the article is still patchy.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

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."

Worsening political situation - May 2009

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)

Consolidation/rationalization of Korean conflict pages

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:

• Crab Wars is renamed Korean maritime border incidents and all the incidents listed on the Northern Limit Line page are moved there
• List of border incidents involving North Korea is changed to Korean DMZ incidents and all Korean Demilitarized Zone incidents are moved there
• a page is created of other non-DMZ and NLL North-South incidents (espionage, submarines, terrorist bombings etc)

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)

Re the "Korean Conflict" title, which has a redirect to the KW. The term "Korean Conflict" or "Korean conflict" is used three articles related to the General Sherman incident, that is via the [Category:Naval engagements of the Korean Conflict involving the United States]. With this in mind, a disambig page should be set up for "Korean conflict". --S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 23:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Korean Cold War merger

• Just as a quick note, I've stumbled across Korean Cold War, which probably should be merged in here (or simply redirected, as there's very little content). Shimgray | talk | 22:35, 15 August 2011 (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)

Strongly oppose - main Korean War page deals with "hot" war (1950-1953); Korean Cold War deals with the "cold" war (1953-present). If anything, Korean maritime border incidents and List of border incidents involving North Korea should be merged into Korean Cold War, and all Korean DMZ incidents and maritime NLL incidents should be moved there. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge, the Korean Cold War article is just a few lines that adds absolutely nothing new to information already contained on substantive pages such as Division of Korea and its subpages Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As I think about it, I will now Oppose, and as mentioned above, propose a redirect. (Hence my strikeout of my earlier comment.} From the outset this merger proposal is improperly tagged. Why wasn't the merger mentioned on the article page from the getgo? Even so, it reeks of POV. The "Cold War" is over, and the division of Korea is a loose end that has more to do with domestic Korean?East Asian politics and economy than Super Power wranglings. Indeed, "Korean Cold War" should be deleted, not merged as doing so will incorporate a "Korean Cold War" concept that utterly lacks WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As discussed on other pages (Korean War etc), I'm proposing a separate "Korean Conflict" page to give an overview of the conflict from the division onwards.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the "Land border incidents" as they duplicate material on List of border incidents involving North Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsupportable in the lead -

"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)

That statement is about correct. The north recovered from the war much better that the south, which had years of 25% inflation etc. Only from the 1970s onward did the south economy catch up then overtake the north. Not a full supporting cite, but one of the existing cites states: "From the 1970s onwards, South Korea's economic strength surpassed that of North Korea, and as the gap widened with time, North Korea found itself unable to compete in a conventional arms race. Especially, the 1990s brought serious economic hardship to North Korea".[7] Rwendland (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Chronological order, please

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)

Yes, independent of the POV discussion around this section, it was in the wrong place in the article chronologically. I have moved it to more nearly where it fits in the history without changing the content. 1bandsaw (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comfort Houses

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)

I have removed the reference to prostitution. The topic has its own article and several readers have flagged it as undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110829125634/http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/en/home/themen/einsaetze/peace/korea.parsys.0003.downloadList.53335.DownloadFile.tmp/nnsc2011e.pdf to http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/en/home/themen/einsaetze/peace/korea.parsys.0003.downloadList.53335.DownloadFile.tmp/nnsc2011e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100825200823/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/Forces-abroad/Korea-/ to http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/Forces-abroad/Korea-/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Soviet war against Japan

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)

Adrian Buzo, The Making of Modern Korea (p 201), says the first troops landed in North East Korea on 10 August.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jager, Brothers at War (pp 19-20) says the Red Army occupied Kaesong by mistake for 10 days before withdrawing north of the 38th Parallel, citing a Newsweek report by Harold Isaacs in September 1945. Presumably, this is what Cumings is referring to.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a film on YouTube called: "Welcoming Americans, Kaesong, Korea, September 11, 1945" which features a meeting between Soviet and US troops.

Korea since 1850 by Stewart Lone and Gavan McCormack says: "Soviet forces crossed the border into Korea on 9 August 1945. By the time of the Japanese surrender on 15 August, they had already captured much of northern Korea and were pushing southwards against diminishing Japanese resistance..." (p 94). (The difference between 8/9 August might be because of time zones.)--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

William Stueck, Rethinking the Korean War says, "By the time Japan surrendered five days later [15 August], Soviet troops were at the gates" of Chongjin (p 22). However the article on Chongjin says it was occupied on 13 August. Stueck also says, "When he arrived in Seoul, Hodge found few Soviet soldiers in the South, and, with exception of those on the isolated Ongjin Peninsula in the extreme west, these quickly departed" (p 27).--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Rationalisation of this page

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)

I have now deleted the "Post division of Korea incidents" section. "Korean maritime border incidents" is now merged into List of border incidents involving North Korea. All border incidents are now on that page. I have tried to mention all major incidents in the Korean conflict page (i.e., incidents that have their own articles). I have placed the remaining list of "non-border" incidents on the Korean conflict talk page for future reference.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed the text of the "Post-armistice inter-Korean relations" section. As well as being a duplication of the North-South relations page, and the other issues mentioned above, it was also based on the situation in 2010. There seems no point in updating this section when, from the point of view of the division, nothing essentially has changed. I have replaced the text with a brief paragraph which, hopefully, neutrally outlines what the situation has been since the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of essential information

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)

I actually added far more information about Lyuh Woon-hyung and the People's Republic of Korea into the body of the article. I revamped the introduction because it was misleading. Essentially, Lyuh was one politician, and the People's Republic was very short-lived. The Provisional Government also had a claim to be a government in waiting.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:13, 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)

I think you should look at the whole article. The fate of the People's Committees in the different occupation zones is dealt with under the headings "South Korea" and "North Korea". I will change those headings to make things clearer.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:42, 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)

The fact is that the division came about with the surrender of Japan, as explained in the article. The article says that the People's Republic of Korea was "short-lived", but goes on to explain: "Hodge refused to recognize the newly formed People's Republic of Korea and its People's Committees, and outlawed it on 12 December."--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Cairo Conference

For Korean nationalists who wanted immediate independence, the phrase "in due course" was cause for dismay.

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)

History

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)

As the lead says, this article is about the division after 1945. The previous divisions are well covered in History of Korea and numerous sub-articles: refer to the side panel. The inclusion of the other information here is redundant. It is also potentially confusing, as readers might draw false parallels between the early divisions and the current one. In any case, the current division is important enough to have its own article, without extraneous material.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say this article's title "Division of Korea" is confusing because it isn't the only literal division of Korea that has ever happened. Also on the other hand, by ignoring history, readers are unable to draw real conclusions between recent events and ones in the far past.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What conclusions would you draw???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That there has been many "divisions of Korea" throughout history.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That is basically irrelevant to the current division. As I said, those early kingdoms have their own articles. This article is about the current division. That is how people have always understood it. The articles that link here are concerned with the modern history. The current division of Korea is important enough to have its own article without the addition of the early history of Korea. I don't think the title is confusing, but if it is, we should change the title, not create a new article. By the way, Division of Germany links to an article about the history 1945-1990. But of course Germany wasn't unified until 1871. I'm reverting your edits because you haven't explained why an article about the current division should include information about the early kingdoms.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland: this article is only about the current division, and its title is the WP:COMMONNAME for this division only. Discussion of previous divisions is only acceptable if reliable sources make the connection between them and this one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-armistice relations

I have removed the following from the article:

However, the 21st century has seen some improved relations between the two sides, overseen in the South by liberal governments, who were more amicable towards the North than previous governments had been. These changes were largely reversed under North Korean "Eternal Leader" Kim Jong-il, who greatly increased the North's defiance and isolation against the rest of the world, as well as pursuit of nuclear armaments.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004181846/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/03/117_40555.html to https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/03/117_40555.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Soviet entry into war against Japan

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)

Sorry, didn't see this before re-editing. But I disagree with your interpretation. I will work out a better wording that will be satisfactory to both of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.24.231 (talk) 22:54, 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.

I'm not sure if this is a dispute about the language or the historical facts. What was wrong with the original wording? To me, "within three months" or "not later than three months" or "in two or three months" essentially mean the same thing, though the last one is vaguer. "After three months" means something different, and is historically false. The changing views of the other Allies is a separate issue. We say that Stalin was keeping his commitment made at Yalta: that's a fact. But the times were changing. Korea is a pivot point where WW2 became the Cold War. The pivot happened when the US decided on the division of Korea at the 38th Parallel. This was done in a rush, after the Soviet declaration of war, and was in response to the rapid gains the Red Army was making. The Soviet declaration of war itself was welcomed by Truman. As I said, this is a separate issue, but it could be expanded on here. I have been working on this episode for some years, and have found it hard to find good historical sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Well, the text of the Yalta agreement says "in two or three months", so that's probably the best thing for us to say.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503211146/http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001070694 to http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001070694

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020717170744/http://ndfsk.dyndns.org/ to http://ndfsk.dyndns.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009165635/http://www.koreascope.org/ks/eng/ to http://www.koreascope.org/ks/eng/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Insurgents?

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)

To be clear statement

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)

That comes from sources. It is important to explain that the two rival leaders were poles apart politically.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

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)

Unfortunately the introduction has turned into a mini-essay again.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Shorter headings

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)

Total Korea "Liberation

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.»

@TheTimesAreAChanging: It's fine that you have reverted. Just wanted to let someone know that there were plans on total Korea "liberation" by Mao and Stalin. If you can read in Russian, here is a source: [8]. Please don't reply if you don't want to engage further. Cheers!

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was planning on the division of Korea and that's what the article says.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)