|
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)
"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)
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)
|
