Talk:Korean reunification/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Neutrality

isn't 남북통일 more neutral than 한반도통일? 한반도 is south korea's name for the peninsula (north's being 조선반도). i don't know what north korea's official/most common wording is, but 조국통일 seems to be one of the ways it is referred to, in both north & south. Appleby 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

남북통일?! Why not 북남통일? It is only in South Korea that 남 always comes first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.86.162 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Post reunification?

Have there been any comments by critics and political analysts about what would happen if the Koreas would actually reunite? Meaning, who would ultimately rule the new Korea and what type of government would exist?? Thanks

To whoever wrote the above, this has been discussed a lot not only in Korea but also within government and academic circles. The key here is that both the US and China favours eventual Korean reunification, but their visions for Korean reunification is entirely different from the two Koreas' visions, as well as each other's.
The US naturally wants to see the ROK swallow up the DPRK and become a pro-US Korean democracy. China wants to see a united Korea that can serve as a buffer state between Japan and the US, or if possible, a China (trading) ally. The ROK (South Korea) wants to see a unified Korea that would allow the Koreans to have an independent voice from its giant neighbours. The DPRK (North Korea) wants to see a juche-Marxist government under Kim for the entire Korea, totally independent and isolationist.
Hope this helps. Jsw663 02:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of this article looks like a mess

This article needs the following: NPOV, no bias, no personal opinions! Half of the article looks like an essay.

I can sign in on that one.. a seriously biased essay.. "North Korea's cheap and skilled workforce, large amount of natural resources and strategic location combined with South Korea's advanced technology, well-developed infrastructure and large capital would lead to decades of strong economic growth for reunited Korea, creating a major economic power in the world." What is this romantic bullshit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.91.17.173 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on this as well. This page is horrible compared to many other pages. There are so many statements and predictions for the future which are hardly believable, especially as there are no references for such assumptions. 75 million people larger than west europe countries? Crap. It is true for most countries, but Germany has +80 million people. I think the whole article needs to be analyzes MUCH more critically for its current content. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Much is needed to improve this Wikipedia article.72.81.233.159 (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV? Impossible. At least be authentic

NPOV is maybe too much to ask for in an article about a political topic that concerns the last remaining artifact of the Cold War and the historically geopolitical hotspot that is Korea. Too many different viable opinions exist for the topic of korean unification to say that any one of them is an "objective view." Even foreign policy experts (from the same country) have diametrically opposed opinions on the topic of Korea and what to do about it!!!

I think the most you can do is be authentic on the topic, meaning basically to not write bullshit. Include all the serious viewpoints. Especially with this topic, I don't think anything is wrong with expressing a little POV, as long as they are authentic viewpoints that can be seriously considered by those interested in this issue. Skandalicious 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rm {{future}}

I've removed {{future}} from this article, because it's inappropriate. The topic of "Korean reunification" will always be in the future tense, and it's not definitely "expected" nor "scheduled". When/If it happens, the page should change accordingly, but for now it's not necessary. ALTON .ıl 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hanja & Hangul

The Hanja and hangul do not match the romanizations, not sure which one is the right one though...Konamaiki (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bigger population than western europe?

North and South Korean population combine 80 million. United Korean population would be bigger then ( Great Britain, Italy, Spain, France and North European countries). United Korean population 80 million would be about similiar size of Germany population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koreafacts (talk • contribs) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With a total population of over 75 million, a reunited Korea would have a population size equivalent or larger than that of today's Western European powers.

Germany alone has 82 mill folks. Is there something I'm missing?--Anss123 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*Smacks head* Rereading I realize it means Korea is comparable in population with the western powers (Germany, France, U.K), not them combined. Reading comprehension is not my greatest strength.--Anss123 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If South Korea has 48 million people and North Korea 23 million, then the result is 71 million people, 11 million less than Germany´s 82 million people...but it is more probable that Austria (8 million people) joins Germany than N.Korea joining S.Korea during the next two decades--79.146.211.0 (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Korean independence

Japan invaded and effectively occupied Korea, which had been independent throughout its 6,000 year recorded history -- this is incorrect. Korea used to a tributary state of China at various point in time, despite modern Korean scholars claiming the opposite. During the Chinese Han dynasty most of the northern part of the Korean peninsula was even occupied by Han China. A more neutral formulation ('semi-independent' perhaps?) needs to be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.214.8 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why the length of independence needs to be mentioned at all - at most, one could put "which had a long tradition of independence" or something like that. Apart from the various foreign occupations, the 6,000 years is ridiculous, anyway. Apparently the Koreans had recorded history before writing was invented!89.217.189.254 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly optimistic introduction

First of all, reunification is by no means "a process underway."

Second, the idea that North and South Korean militaries could combine or even function together is absurd, as the North Korean army is grossly inferior to the modern ROK army.

The other absurd proposition is that reunification would be an immediate economic boon to the South. It would not, as North Korea requires hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction efforts

The only valid statement is that the reunified Korea would likely be a nuclear power, and have 80 million people (notwithstanding that the current North Korean population would be irrevocably physically and mentally underdeveloped from malnourishment and technologically backwards). North Koreans aren't about to go from drill bits to Samsung LCDs. In a very long-term view NK can be beneficial, but in the immediate future, unification is a huge economic burden to South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.68.146 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Korea will give up her nuclear weaponry after reunification. I highly doubt Japan, China, Russia, USA would allow Korea to have nuclear weapons after reunification. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Korean war

Why isnt Korean war mentioned? As this was a very real and serious attemp to actually UNITE the nation under on goverment, but that was not to be because American interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Bullcrap. It was not to be because of South Korean interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More bullcrap. Both Kim Il-sung and Syngman Rhee both pushed extremely hard for unification under their respective regimes but US, China, and USSR were not interested in continuing the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.97.198 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It could go the way of Germany, Vietnam, or status quo. The only realistic example is Vietnam. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Beijing 09

I think someone should edit the end of the first section (division). The Beijing Olympics have already passed!!! I would edit it but i am not too sure about the facts whether the Koreas unified or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.129.62 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed

This, from the lead:

By 2050, the South Korean economy alone would have grown to over $4 trillion and have an income per capita of over $90,000, surpassing all of the current G7 except the United States.[1] If reunited, Korea will experience a period of tremendous economic growth as North Korea's cheap and skilled workforce, large amount of natural resources and strategic location work together with South Korea's advanced technology, well-developed infrastructure and large reserves of capital, creating a prominent economic power in the world.

The first sentence is irrelevant; comparing the size of anyone's economy in 2050 to economies now is nothing better than propaganda; citing other parts of Wikipedia is not good practice, if permitted; and the source itself is practically meaningless. The second sentence also needs a citation if it is to remain in the article since it contradicts everyone's expectations and all current precedent. Leushenko (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the same could be said for the paragraph on military stats as well - Unified Korea is not going to keep two wholly incompatible sets of military hardware, nor are 95% of the soldiers going to keep their jobs when their biggest respective enemy is no longer there. Again, it is effectively uncited: supplying current military hardware statistics does not count as providing citations about a hypothetical future force, and once again ideally this should not use another 'pedia article as its source. I'm tempted to remove it too but this might make the lead too short. Is anyone else bothered? Leushenko (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

laughable

the previous state of this article was laughable in a sad sort of way.

do I even have to mention that wikipedia isn't exactly the right place for predictions and "what if" arguments ?

oh and please don't cite wikipedia as a source.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Change US to Imperialists Maybe?

The United States is portrayed as the Big Bad Wolf .The Sun Shine Policy is a political brand name but HARDLINE is Bias I am Changing it to Pragmatic . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.183.114 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons?

First it says:

"combining the world's fifth and sixth largest armed forces will create the second largest armed forces in the world — larger than that of the United States — taking advantage of North Korea's substantial arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons..."

Then it says:

"Some... say the process of reunification has already begun ... On the other hand, current reality would seem to show otherwise, as the DMZ that separates the two Koreas remains heavily guarded and North Korea has yet to give up its nuclear weapons."

So, Korea would have a substantial amount of nuclear arsenal after the peninsula gives it up? Which is it? —Tokek (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

After the 2nd Korean war, I doubt much of these armed forces will exists (on both sides), and much of these nuclear weapons will be expended. 72.81.233.159 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory

Taken from the 'international views - China' section first sentence: The Chinese government's official stance is to support reunification under peaceful means, although in reality China has a definite interest in ultimately maintaining a divided Korea.

The last sentence in the paragraph though says: Despite the possible drawbacks to Korean reunification from the Chinese point of view, it is likely that the Chinese government is still in overall support of reunification for two major reasons: 1) Once Korean reunification is complete, the United States would no longer have a justifiable reason to maintain a military presence in northeast Asia (outside of Japan), thus the U.S. would likely (especially in the face of a possible increasingly nationalistic, reunified Korean population and government) withdraw its forces from the Korean peninsula.

This is just plain contradictory (not to mention the first sentence sounds biased by the way it is worded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynex811 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph in question needs citations (or better yet, citations and a rewrite). Not to mention the second point is missing... AustinZ (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the entire talk page, this article seriously lacks encyclopedia-level quality. My assessment: "official stance is to support reunification" --- okay, if it's official then presumably it's citable so that's encyclopedic, but "although in reality China has a definite interest in ultimately maintaining a divided Korea" --- that's speculation! Op-ed / speculation like that has no place in an encyclopedia. Where to start with this article?—Tokek (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Idea of the US Army leaving after reunification is just not looking at the facts and the reasons they are there now. First when reunification happens it will cost billions of dollar maybe trillions Korea could pay but the US, China, Russia, E.U. all have a huge interest in spreading the cost so that korea does go into depression and stops buy there goods . Today Korea offers the US Armed forces bases in return for the US helping defend S. Korea saving the South billions it might otherwise have to spend on defense as well US bases and troops spend billions buying korean products for themselves and the bases. Reunification will not be like in germany there east Germans made about half a West German in N. Korea it more like a 13:1 ratio and the factories in the north don't work anymore . The south koreans will need the US armed forces more then today to help rebuild the north and secure WMDs , rebuilding will take years even decades and that will most likely mean US forces stay. US troops are still in Germany and if former Soviet satellites in Easter and Central Europe most whom are now NATO members and more pro-american then there western counterparts are any guides US and UN troops will be there for the foreseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8Riley (talk • contribs) 17:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

America will withdraw from Korean Peninsula and relocate back to Japan after reunification. There is no North Korea threat, there is little reason why America would be in Korea, except as a foreign colonialists occupy and stealing land from Korean people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Reference: WP:BALL

IMHO, this article attracts many speculation and prediction. Perhaps an article with a title more focused on facts and history might be appropriate for an encyclopedia, e.g. North-South Korean relations or History of Korean reunification process. —Tokek (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unverified POV's

There are many unsupported opinions throughout this article concerning Korean Reunification. For example, when talking about South Korea's "Sunshine Policy", views for or against are unattributed to any individual or group. It would be helpful if the views expressed in this article where attributed to a verifiable source. Maphisto86 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

As already mentioned here in the discussion page, Wikipedia isn't out to predict the future. There is absolutely no way to say what the army of a unified Korea will look like. In fact unless a unified Korea has aspirations of immediately attacking or defending against an invasion from another state, I fail to see the importance of including a hypothetical and overly optimistic view (in the eyes of a Korean nationalist) of a Korean army immediately after unification. If anything, I think the potential changes to quality of life, the economy and personal liberties are far more important to mention in the intro, however it looks far better without the silly military guesses, so I've deleted them. Anawrahta (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The army topic should not be dealt in the introduction, but rather in the section for neighbouring countries' veiws on the reunification. If, as mentioned in the article, the unified Korean army is to be that significant, the neighbouring countries will not be so supportive for the reunification due to the likely result in the need to expand their armed forces. This fact has, of course, not mentioned in official talks between the conecerned countries as far as I know. But it has been dealt by international relations scholars. Hopefully, someone can find proper sources for this argument and put it in the section, 'International views.'Kymagnus (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pyongyang

Although it's sourced, the information is not correct (and cannot possibly be). Pyongyang does not lack electricity supply. May have been so in the 1990s, but it isn't so nowadays - anybody who has been there recently can confirm it. Same thing with the traffic statement. There is public transport on the streets of Pyongyang, there are also vehicles, even though rare. I will wait for objections and then remove the statements. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The state of this article

Unfortunately, this article has deteriorated since the time I conducted major changes last time, i.e. Instead of gradually removing unsourced and/or POV passages, a user made several edits on Dec. 13, 2009, most of his/her consecutive edits being baseless erasures of useful information. See [1], [2]. Hence, I'll be bold and revert the article to the version before User:Grayshi's disruptive changes. Any useful changes made since then shall be re-added. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 10:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed entry

I don't see how this entry is relevant or what is it about (perhaps it has been copied from somewhere and the original text included some image or video - the latter part seems to be a caption). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Tong-Il (통일 / 統一) is also the final pattern (Tul) in the ITF-style Taekwon-Do syllabus performed by 6th Dan candidates testing for 7th Degree Black Belt (Master). It is composed of 56 movements. Below is the official pattern interpretation used by the 3 ITF organisations - Tong-il denotes the resolution of the unification of Korea which has been divided since 1945. The diagram symbolizes the homogenous race.

Is it press release?

The article looks more like a press release of a self proclaimed amateur think-tank rather than an article in Wikipedia. The statements such as "Russia has a lot to gain", "a reunified Korea may deprive China from South Korean investment", "in reality China has a definite interest in ultimately maintaining a divided Korea" and "it is in the United States' interest to...protect American hegemony" need more sources especially the official ones. It's definitely the ultimate interest to remove amateur analysis and conspiracy theories in the article to maintain Wikipedians' hegemony. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bravo.--Srich32977 재한유엔기념공원 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree, the article needs far more references. I am about to begin a total makeover of the article, and I need assistance. Please come onboard and joint Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea.

--Gniniv (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

More effects on reunification

The complication section describes many problems, but I wish someone introduce more benefits about the reunification, such as natural resources and improved land traffic. I also want to know the environmental impact of reunification. 111.251.194.233 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Matters of the Koreas themselves ONLY

The reunification of both Koreas should be democratic but also autocratic. The matter of reunification should only be left to the responsibilities and sentiments of the Korean people. Why should outsiders be involved to buffer the reunification process? (i.e. US, China, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, ..... [list goes on]). Sources: As a Korean myself, I know very well more than my fellow Americans or foreigners of the sentiments and feelings of Koreans on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.212.55 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Communist Propaganda

As noted elsewhere in the article, there are other ways to bring about reunification besides "those in power . . . [being] willing to yield their control" and "sacrifice and humility". This appeasement mentality has only emboldened North Korea, which has repaid South Korea by murdering many of its people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.241.192 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

I find it kind of interesting how the title of this article is "Korean reunification", while the South Korean governmental agency is called Ministry of Unification. Can anybody account for the differences? Shrigley (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is titled "reunification" because Korea was previously a unified sovereign state untill it was annexed by Japan. Charles Essie (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

capitalist propaganda

lol @ north korea starting the war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfs8y8986 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

North Korea started the war through invasion. Its political representatives were suppressed in the South and democratic elections nullified. Not that elections ever seemed important to the North ever again 46.59.34.174 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Korea was divided due to the Soviet Operation August Storm in 1945 when they attacked Japan. The NKPA was formed largely from Korean veterans of the Red Army who, as communists, would never tolerate a non-communist government in Korea. Each half of Korea had its own military force but the South also had UN/US support while the DPRK only had ComBloc support. Thus the current stalemate. The North no longer has the capability to invade the South while the South, currently, has no desire to invade the North with the North being destitute. The PRC doesn't want another all-out war possibly going nuclear on it's borders. The North will not tolerate the South taking over as it will be absorbed eventually resulting in the Communists going away as in Eastern Europe. It's all a sad state of affairs for the Korean people.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Korean reunification. 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: 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) 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean reunification. 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: 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) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Focus on significant information

I propose to delete a sentence in the Implications section about military reservist and IT hacking staff resources. Modern wars dont need large troupes, and the reservists are simply insignificant. In a united Korea, both military personnel and IT staff will be adjusted to requirements quickly. There are much more important questions, than how to work out trivial decruiting details. I wonder if the said sentence carries biased personal fears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:89:2F18:8652:227:10FF:FE26:D460 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Emblem of Korean Courts.svg used in this article has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: I think time has come to finish the long-forgotten (or ignored) question: Is [Template:M used with invalid code 'tl'. See documentation.]KOGL free?  I doubt its freeness, based on the fact that we do not have definite answer for Template talk:KOGL#Free?. To save your click...  [Template:M used with invalid code 'talkquote'. See documentation.]In case the terms change we (on Wikimedia projects) can still reuse it under the licensing conditions at the time of upload here. But in that case we must stop distributing the file to others because we are not a licensor (only a reuser) and our scope of redistributing entirely relies on the licensing of the source. If the source licensing is not a public license (but a private license contract concluded when the licensee downloads the file from the official source) then it is not free. Its revocable and fails c:Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.  We, as of 2018, do not have a final answer for this. And this means, we have to delete these images, including some VIs and FPs. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

  1. ^ See BRIC.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_reunification/Archive_1&oldid=1142346865"