Jump to content

Talk:Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea

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

Real name?

[edit]

Could someone get the real MR for the name. I took a guess because I didn't know how it worked. - 68.255.37.206 00:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is "MR"?? I looked on http://www.acronymfinder.com/MR.html and there are 129 possible definitions of this term. Please be more specific. Hmortar (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation

[edit]

I am wondering if the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was ever referred to as "Korea Shanghai" ??? Has anyone come across an abbreviated usage of this type?? Hmortar (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai had never been a part or whole of Korea. Korea had never been a part or whole of Shanghai. The fact is merely that some Koreans had resided there. Therefore, the abbreviation of "Korea Shanghai" is not only inappropriate, but also misleading. A question was raised somewhere below on the difference of flags in the present and the past, implying that they are never been continuous nor successive government. --Wavethesecond (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=UpZWfYqiVLMC&pg=PA48&dq=others+attached+themselves+to+chiang+kai-sheks+nationalist+party+and+set+up+a+government+in+exile+that+was+based+in+Shanghai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5z24UNfsCOiD0QGPpoDQDw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=others%20attached%20themselves%20to%20chiang%20kai-sheks%20nationalist%20party%20and%20set%20up%20a%20government%20in%20exile%20that%20was%20based%20in%20Shanghai&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue

[edit]

I just wondering about the use of recent South Korean flag for this page. If I'm not wrong, the recent design was only regulated following the establishment of the ROK in 1948 and the Taegeukgi had many variant design before.

As showed at this pictures:

The flag of the Provisional Government rather had a different yin-yang and trigrams position than the recent Taegeukgi.

Any idea? --FirstStooge (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Do will someody will remove the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.54.66 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. See some "weak" and "tentative" opposition, so consensus not to move has not been achieved. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors have some time to strengthen their argument and garner consensus for a future requested move in a few months. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea → Korean Provisional Government – The name of this article is too long, so it should be shortened to as "Korean Provisional Government". 135.23.145.14 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Preliminary Copyedit

[edit]

I took a shot at a preliminary copyedit of this article, focusing mostly on the "Transition of Power" section. I was fairly limited by the fact that this section appears to be a pretty rough translation from either Korean or Chinese. I tried to correct the grammar and standardize name formatting, as well as rephrasing any poorly-translated sections that I felt confident in knowing the meaning of.

In the process, I removed some plaintext citation notes that were probably carried over from whichever version of Wikipedia the text was translated from. This suggests that there are sources available for some of the article's material that could be added back in by somebody who is able to find the sources on the version the translation is based on and add them back in with proper formatting. Since I don't speak Korean or Chinese, I'm not able to do this, and I thought removing the footnotes from the text would be better than leaving them in with no references section to refer to.

Anyone wishing to put these citations back in could look at the prior revision to my edits, which has the footnotes intact.

Since the article is still in fairly rough shape from its initial translation I think I'll leave the {{copyedit}} tag up. It could still use some help, particularly from someone who can read the Korean/Chinese articles and use them to clean this version up.

I'm still new to editing so please let me know if I've overstepped in any way. I'll be watching this page. TitanAndromeda (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armed forces of the provisional government

[edit]

Who were the guerilla and armed groups that served the provisional government before they reorganized into Korean Liberation Army. Koreanidentity10000 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, the Korean Patriotic Organization, Kim Won-bong's Heroic Corps and Korean Volunteer Corps, and followers of Ji Cheong-cheon. There were like over 400 soldiers in the army though, so I'm definitely missing some sources of men. toobigtokale (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Successor to KPG

[edit]

Hi, before my recent edit the infobox said that the KPG's successor was the USAMGIK. I disagreed with this characterization and changed its successor to SK. I could be wrong about this though, so open to discussion.

Reasoning: the central US govt never recognized the KPG, so it's not like they received any 'mandate' from it. This is especially true considering the KPG never had any concrete de facto jurisdiction over the peninsula or its people.

On the other hand, South Korea retroactively acknowledged the KPG as its predecessor (which I'd argue is mostly ceremonial; again KPG had no de facto jurisdiction). So if anything, its successor is SK exclusively because SK said so. Perhaps if they too rejected the KPG the KPG would have had no successor, like some of the other Korean provisional governments that fizzled away earlier.

Admittedly I'm still learning about the KPG myself, so could be wrong. toobigtokale (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End date

[edit]

I'm pretty sure the KPG didn't end in 1945. Afaik they kept operating until the founding of South Korea. I don't have a source for that on hand but will return once I do toobigtokale (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to mainstream "authoritative" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica[1] and the ROK-government National Library of Korea[2], the KPG ended in 1945 after the Japanese surrender. After it fell apart the individual members traveled (or were transported) to the US occupation zone in the south, where many of them participated in the creation of the ROK under US auspices years later. The idea that the KPG existed after 1945 and was "succeeded" by the later ROK is a retroactive invention given life through the ROK 1987 constitutional amendments. --Havsjö (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ROK article you linked doesn't say that the KPG dissolved in 1945, just that they roamed around in exile until 1945.
The KPG maintained a de facto administration that operated out of Gyeonggyojang. When they returned to the peninsula, they had signed on paper that they were returning as civilians, but they ignored this. Rhee had come to hate the rest of the KPG, who he viewed as violent terrorists (because of their past assassinations of Japanese colonial personnel). They had a power struggle with the US and Rhee for several years, which culminated in the North–South Conference of 1948, in which Kim Ku (functionally acting on behalf of the KPG) tried to negotiate with Kim Il Sung for reunification, which infuriated observers ([3] and [4]). Rhee came to hate Kim Ku because of this conflict so much that he attempted to block mourners at Kim's funeral in 1949, and later tried to replace his grave with a highway and stadium at Hyochang Park.
In 1946, the KPG attempted to assassinate of a number of North Korean leaders, which angered the US, as it risked destabilizing the peninsula.
I also have authoritative sources from mainstream Koreanists that support the fact that they continued a de facto administration that still went by the name KPG.
For a few, see refs on my wip article User:Toobigtokale/Attempted assassination of Kim Il Sung. If you want I can find some more. toobigtokale (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a US intelligence document from 1946 that mentions the KPG by name.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_Il_Sung,_Kim_Tu-bong_Assasination_Plot_Letter.jpg#mw-jump-to-license toobigtokale (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the kowiki version of the article, they say: 1948년 8월 15일 대한민국 정부가 수립됨으로써 대한민국 임시정부는 해산하였다. -> The KPG dissolved when the South Korean government formed on August 15, 1948. It's the English version of this article that is strange.
Also, (all I can offer is my word on this) English language literature (especially encyclopedic) about the KPG's history is littered with mistakes. I write a lot about the KPG and often struggle to reconcile these mistakes with each other, so I default to the Korean language consensus. This period of Korean history is so poorly studied in the West that much of what I write about is not covered in academic publications in English.
Case in point the Kim Ku article; I wrote >90% of this. I think this is one of the most complete texts on him that exist in English. Not patting myself on the back, more sad and frustrated that nobody's written about this period in depth before. Sorry for the rant, the lack of Western research in this area has been bugging me for months now. toobigtokale (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the National Library says that they "[...] roamed around in exile [in China] until 1945 and the surrender of Japan", at which point they and article ends. Or as Encyclopedia Britannica clarifies "With the liberation of Korea from Japanese occupation at the end of World War II, the Korean Provisional Government came to an end." Indeed the former members of this group were still active and even acted in or used the KPG's name for their political activities, but these were several rival groupings which were unlike the KPG in its unified government-form as it existed before the end of 1945(/beginning of 1946). Certainly the post-1945 epilogue of the KPG should be included in the article body, but its is hardly valid to list the KPG as existing in its pre-1945 "national government" form until 1948 where it is supposed to be succeeded by the ROK. The Korean wikipedia version of this page you refer to indeed goes into quite some detail regarding the situation of post-1945 splits and rivalry, as well as American non-recognition of the KPG in occupied Korea and the involvement in the formation instead of what would become the ROK. Even if one were to argue that the ROK succeed the KPG(/1st March Movement) "spiritually" (as the ex-members in the ROK claimed), there was still a period of several years of US occupation and active suppression of the KPG between the KPG and ROK which prohibits its plain listing as a direct successor, at least in the infobox. --Havsjö (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the National Library says that they "[...] roamed around in exile [in China] until 1945 and the surrender of Japan", at which point they and article ends. If I'm understanding you correctly, you shouldn't read between the lines like this, that's not ok. If something is not explicitly stated, we shouldn't use it as evidence. And all you've provided is a single piece of evidence, the Encyclopedia Britannica (not a scholarly source; an encyclopedia, which has lower weight on Wikipedia), but in my WIP article alone there's like 5–6 that contradict it.
Either way, the phrasing in the infobox is not "direct successor", it's "successor". Successors don't need to follow immediately after. There are all kinds of scenarios (bands, monarchies, companies) where there was a gap of several years where the entity was defunct, but started up again later and was happily considered a successor. toobigtokale (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then this seems to be because you just really, really, really want the KPG to have become the ROK (just as certain groups in the ROK want it too). Again, just read the, as you said, detailed chronicling in the Korean version of the fracturing of the pre-1945 government into several rival groups using its name (i.e. no longer a "national government in exile" as before 1945). And considering the US military authorities were actively suppressing the KPG in their occupation zone for years, some pretty explicit sources would have to be presented (such as USAMGIK orders or directives, and not references to Syngman Rhee's 1948 speeches that the ROK "represented to goals of the 1st March Movement" etc) regarding the sudden reversal of American policy to in 1948 instead elevate the hitherto opposed (and apparently still intact) "Provisional Government" (KPG) into the "Republic of Korea" (ROK) --Havsjö (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then this seems to be because you just really, really, really want the KPG to have become the ROK (just as certain groups in the ROK want it too).
Hand to heaven, I do not. In fact, read Talk:Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea#Successor to KPG or scroll up. Is that not a skeptical take on this? My writings about the KPG are also often critical; I write a ton of unflattering things about South Korean history and Korean heroes that would definitely anger people. Please don't assume the worst of me and please tone down the condescension.
fracturing of the pre-1945 government into several rival groups using its name (i.e. no longer a "national government in exile" as before 1945)
I'm not sure what these rival groups that all used the KPG name are, could you clarify? Rhee dropped his association with the KPG as soon as it became clear the U.S. favored him. The only group that claimed to be the KPG was the one led by Kim Ku; people probably wouldn't have accepted any other rival leader of the KPG, he was wildly popular.
And considering the US military authorities were actively suppressing the KPG in their occupation zone for years, some pretty explicit sources would have to be presented (such as USAMGIK orders or directives, and not references to Syngman Rhee's 1948 speeches that the ROK "represented to goals of the 1st March Movement" etc) regarding the sudden reversal of American policy to in 1948 instead elevate the hitherto opposed (and apparently still intact) "Provisional Government" (KPG) into the "Republic of Korea" (ROK)
The U.S. was not the arbiter of what predecessors would have been at the time. There is no formal definition of what succession must look like. All we can rely on is what scholars say, and you've only provided one source to back your claim up so far.
Again, please keep this civil. If you read back what I've written, most people would agree none of it is written rudely. toobigtokale (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, the following is my actual opinion about the KPG. You can check the dates I added the edits in the Kim Ku article if you want proof I'm not changing my opinions on the spot to prove a point.
See this. Half of the Kim Ku article just describes petty infighting, interspersed with numerous fluffy announcements that led to nothing (I even ended up excluding most of them), as well as wildly unrealistic predictions and demands of the ROC government. The KPG, while it had noble goals, was fairly incompetent and accomplished little.
If I'm incapable of controlling my biases when I write, why would I want South Korea to be associated with this? I genuinely, genuinely don't care what conclusions are reached, my goal is to just parrot whatever the international consensus is. If you ever catch me diverting from the international consensus, I've made a mistake.
If you can provide sources to prove me wrong, I swear I'll happily accept them. I don't pretend to be an expert and think the world deserves the best arguments to be the winners. I'm just not convinced so far, namely due to the lack of evidence. toobigtokale (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any response? I may add the claim back with sources if not. toobigtokale (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Andro611 in this relevant discussion because of an edit made recently on the White Shirts Society article.
I haven't forgotten about this btw. In the next several months I'm going to be trying to finish up the Kim Ku article, which will necessarily involve a lot of reading about this time period. However, the period really dense and complicated so it'll take me a while. toobigtokale (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Departments needed

[edit]

I've read somewhere that the provisional government has several departments that preserves Korean culture and history during the occupation and a Military Affairs department that coordinates guerilla groups. Is that right? Koreanidentity10000 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the former but I know the latter is true. The military affairs department worked to coordinate with the rebels in Manchuria toobigtokale (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Government_of_the_Republic_of_Korea&oldid=1232564411"