Talk:Korean Armistice Agreement

need balancing material to flesh this out, too POV
"In 2013 North Korea argued that the armistice was meant to be a transitional measure. North Korea had made a number of proposals for replacing it with a peace treaty, but the U.S. had not responded in a serious way." - there are reasons for this, i.e. the Allied position that NK's refusal to give up it's nuclear weapons are key to any talks, etc. The way this and the rest of the paragraph reads comes across that the US/SK are solely responsible for the current problems on this topic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief note on U.S. position, based on a long CRS quote given in footnote (perhaps too long). Do you think that will do?  I haven't found a more expansive source, to do much better. Rwendland (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's good material - I would just move it up immediately after the "serious way" statement for better context. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Korean Armistice Agreement. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C809583%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2009/05/28/46/0401000000AEN20090528004200315F.HTML
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21709917
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312033728/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2013/201303/news07/20130307-07ee.html to http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2013/201303/news07/20130307-07ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315045124/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2968431 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2968431
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/137176.pdf

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) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean Armistice Agreement. 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/20121104135209/http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/2-korea/1-timeline/ to http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/2-korea/1-timeline/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518085240/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/p_rok_60th_int_16.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/p_rok_60th_int_16.html

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) 09:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

United country
The 2nd paragraph of the lede states "The Armistice formally divided the Korean peninsula despite it being a united country for thousands of years... before 1945." How is this possible, when there were multiple kingdoms existing for many centuries? At times these kingdoms fought each other to take over the others' territory. I might see some truth in this statement where Goryeo and Joseon are concerned. But in the Three Kingdoms period and the Silla/Balhae period, I don't see how this statement can possibly hold up. Single culture? Maybe. But united country? The past couple "thousands of years" covers some times of major division. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With no response for over two months, I have removed the problematic statement. Even one of the references cited seems to go against the statement, discussing Silla's conflict with Koguryo. Mark Froelich (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Correct order of parties to the agreement
I've found two versions of the text of the agreement from NARA, one put UNC first, while the other put KPA first. Are there two versions of the text, or only one of them is official? Extracts: Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a military armistice in Korea.

Preamble

The undersigned, the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, on the other hand... vs. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SUPREME COMMANDER OF THE KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY AND THE COMMANDER OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE'S VOLUNTEERS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONCERNING A MILITARY ARMISTICE IN KOREA

PREAMBLE

The undersigned, the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, on the one hand, and the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the other hand... The text from State Department TIAS puts UNC first, too. However, the NARA version that puts KPA first shows image of each page, so it seems to be a copy of the original. Happyseeu (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)