Talk:Division of Korea

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title: "civil war"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worsening political situation - May 2009 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Support merger (e.g., set up redirect) of KCW into this page per nom.--S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consolidation/rationalization of Korean conflict pages 

message: *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)
replies: text: Support merger (e.g., set up redirect) of KCW into this page per nom.--S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Korean Cold War]] merger

message: "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)
replies: text: 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". Rwendland (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupportable in the lead - 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chronological order, please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comfort Houses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Division of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rationalisation of this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of essential information 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Cairo Conference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What conclusions would you draw???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That there has been many "divisions of Korea" throughout history.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with : 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-armistice relations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet entry into war against Japan 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Insurgents? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To be clear statement 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shorter headings 

message: - «Undid revision 1126611660 by  Not actionable; not a valid use of maintenance tags;  edit summary "ce"); unclear what is being asked.»
: 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: . Please don't reply if you don't want to engage further. Cheers!
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Total Korea "Liberation