Talk:Korean reunification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

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)

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)


Contents

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)