Talk:Korean War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Civil War?

It's general knowledge that the Korean War is not acknowledged as a civil war. More pointedly, this term is specifically avoided especially in the case of the Korean War due to the fact that it was a war that had much to do with foreign interests, and ideological clashes. Any academic source will confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.19 (talk • contribs)

Yes OK.c'mon, we've fished a good one.User:Kfc1864Talk to me 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty much a civil war. In many cases, immediate family members were fighting against each other. Even behind the frontlines, Soutk Koreans fought the South Koreans, and on a smaller scale North Koreans fought the North Koreans too.--HanzoHattori 06:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning, most battles/wars are Civil Wars. Germans fought Germans in both WWI and WWII, French fought French In both Wars, etc. They can hardly be called Civil Wars though. Many of the case of South Koreans fighting South Koreans were cases where after finding themselves behind North Korean lines, many South Korean males were conscripted into the KPA Army. wbfergus 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant the anti-communist insurgents in North Korea, and communist (and even not-really-communist - see Jeju slaughter) guerillas in South Korea. The Germans and the French ceased to be one nation about 1,000 years ago. --HanzoHattori 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Germans fought Germans in both WWI and WWII, French fought French In both Wars, etc. They can hardly be called Civil Wars though."

That statement is hardly true, when talking about a large scale.

However, the Korean War was, despite containing elements of a civil war, the attack of a North Korean state against a South Korean state, later with foreign interference. So it is not a civil war in the actual sense of the term. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Although (in some sense) North and South Koreans belong to the same nation, Korean war was a war between two independent states. If it can be called a civil war, was American Revolution civil? --Acepectif 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Small error (?)

A sentance in section 2.1 caught my attention as a possible typo: "The South Korean Army had 65,000 soldiers armed, trained, and equipped by the U.S. military, and as a force was deficient in armor and artillery."

The term seems out of place. Did someone mean to add efficiant? I'm not exactly a Korean War scholar so I'm not exactly equipped to alter it myself, so I figure I'd bring it to the attention of the Wiki-folk.Reason turns rancid 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably means they weren't well equipped with armor or artillery, or if they were well equipped, then not very proficient with it, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/KW-Outbreak/outbreak.htm, at the bottom of Page 6. It states "The South Korean armed forces had no tanks, no medium artillery, and no fighter aircraft or bombers." wbfergus 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following minor correction to the Invasion of North Korea section. OLD: the U.N. forces the advance into North Korea. NEW: the U.N. forces advanced into North Korea.

Fixed. Parsecboy 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporary removal of a confusing paragraph

I've just finished copyediting the Republic of China section and simply can't make out what this para is trying to say. If you wrote it (or understand it!) please let me know, or copyedit it yourself, before reinstating it. Thanks.

As the PVA rotated about 2 million troops during the war, the casualty figures of some Western sources might, at first glance, seem excessive. For example, if the PVA had suffered 500,000 casualties (1/4 of all troops rotated) or 1,000,000 casualties (1/2 of all troops rotated), one might think that the PVA would have been so weakened that they would not have been able to defend the line, let alone mount any meaningful offensive, and since the battle line hardly shifted from 1951 to 1953, the untrained eye might think that the U.N. and Chinese, because they enjoyed a similar lack of progress, endured a relative parity of losses such that the high casualty figures should be regarded with skepticism. However, the western forces suffer a disadvantage in air power, logistics, morale and manpower reserves.
mikaul^talk 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving(for once,stop this discussion or move it to another space

I've decided to take the job of Archiving threads older than 3 days, and move this absurd discussion(?) to another page.Thank you.Kfc1864 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Another Page:Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion or Talk:Korean War/CCD.

Requests for arbitration

If all the parties agreed,I recommended Requests for arbitration.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! Lets end this finally. wbfergus 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, one takes a dispute before a mediator or 3rd opinion, before going straight to arbitration. I'd prefer to use either of those two options before arbcom. Parsecboy 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Emm,which to choose?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just read the 3rd opinion page a little more closely, and it's generally for a dispute between two editors, so a mediation would be the best option. Parsecboy 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok,We directly go to mediation--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never filed a request for mediation, though I know wbfergus did, for this issue earlier, so perhaps he'd be the best one to do it. Parsecboy 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you see the discussion page, there are also suggestions that Third Opinion can be used for articles where multiple editors are involved. As long as there are two sides to it, I think it's ok to use Third Opinion. This is what I did on template:History of Manchuria, though unfortunately the disputants there just ignored it and continue to argue for their preferred version. After Third Opinion, I think the next step should be Mediation. Then if that still doesn't work, do a RfC User Conduct on Ksyrie, and that will lead to an arbitration, I think. Arbitration in Wikipedia is conducted on users, not the article's contents. Cydevil38 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; I've never done an arbitration, and did not know that. Whatever the group here decides to do, be it 3rd opinion or mediation is fine by me. Parsecboy 01:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Montage

Maybe we need one, to be corresponding to WWI,II and the RUSSO-JAPAN War.Kfc1864 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; I suggest the photo of that is currently the main photo, the photo of the MiG-15 (unless a better photograph of aerial combat between MiGs and Sabre/Shooting Star jets can be found) and the one of trucks crossing the 38th Parallel. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about making any of these kinds of pictures, but i'll give suggestions when I read the article now.Kfc1864 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the pics you said, the landing at Inchon picture, and the pictur of Chinese returning.Kfc1864 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I was looking for pictures of Chinese or NK soldiers on the commons, but couldn't find any. Do you want to put it together or do you want me to try? I've never done one of these either. One thing we'll have to be careful about is what licensing we put it under (although they should all be public domain pictures, if they're from the work of the US government). Just one thing to consider. Parsecboy 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing: How do you put these pictures together?Kfc1864 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I would just save them all to my computer and put them into paint or another program and put them together that way. Parsecboy 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I put one together here. Let me know what you think. It's not set in stone or anything, so we can rearrange the pictures or use different ones if people would prefer that. I'll hold off on putting it on the infobox for the moment, until you and anyone else who's interested comment on it. Parsecboy 12:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Kfc1864 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Parsecboy 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not to sure about the aircraft picture, it's a bit blurry. Have you looked at commons:Korean War? Maybe something there might be better. wbfergus 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there aren't really any good alternatives. The images on the Korean War commons page under the "Aerial Warfare" heading are all piston-engined aircraft from WWII, nothing that is distinctly from the Korean War. I also checked the articles for the MiG-15, F-86 Sabre, and the F-80 Shooting Star for a good image, but those are primarily images from test runs, and then from air shows and museums and the like. Nothing really usable. Perhaps we can find a better image in a book or online. It would automatically be public domain if it's from a gun camera. Parsecboy 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found one that's semi-decent at [1] of some B-26's (propeller driven) dropping bombs on North Koren. About the best I see for the F-86 is [2]. The caption reads "Capt. Joseph McConnell Jr., a pilot with the 51st Fighter Intercepter Wing, talks with his crew chief while in the cockpit of his F-86 Sabre jet, "Beauteous Butch." McConnell became the 27th jet ace of the Korean conflict March 9, 1953. (U.S. Air Force photo)" wbfergus 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this image on the MiG Alley article; I hadn't seen it when I was searching for images earlier. It is probably better than the one in the montage now. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I updated the montage image with the new F-86 picture I found, just say the word and I'll upload it and replace the one on now. Parsecboy 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Parsecboy 12:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. wbfergus 12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

neutral comments

I'll be happy to offer elp on the problem here. I saw your request on the military history talk page. Mr. Killigan 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. You can get a "background" on the issue by reading :Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion or Talk:Korean War/CCD. Thanks. wbfergus 10:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a ton of argument around how many Chinese soldiers died in the Korean War, something that doesn't really seem important to me. The current version is obviously a compromise but getting to this point was a complete waste of time. I don't think arguing about how many people died is helpful to making this article better.

What is wrong here is that some editors are pushing for point of view (POV) and causing a lot of trouble. I'm not saying tat one side is better or worse, its just that this kind of discussion is not needed. If the article is fine with the current edit for the Chinese casualty list, then I don't think any further mediation stuff should be done (unless somebody thinks the original is fine).

Also, everybody should remember that this is the english wikipedia and although (most) editors make sure to keep articles NPOV, the articles will eventually become written from the American or english speaking countries' perspective. I'm sure the Chinese wikipedia has much more elaboration from the Chinese viewpoint of the Korean War. If you keep accusing that this article is "America POV", its not going to get you very far. Mr. Killigan 10:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Kfc1864's move of the discussion to the CCD page essentially ended the issue. Kysrie, the only one who is objecting to the page as it stands now, seems to have dropped the issue. The page as it stands now essentially is the original, just slightly altered in format. Kysrie initially attempted to remove the US estimate of Chinese casualties, and failing that, attempted to place the Chinese estimate of American casualties, which apparently didn't last long. I agree that it's not that big of a deal, but on the other hand, I won't sit idly by while someone tries to make the article conform with what is essentially Chinese propaganda. Parsecboy 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No,I didn't drop.As Mr.Killigan had stated,the current version reflects too many American view points.Taking two issues,the American and UN casualities and Chinese casualities.For all you can see from the talk page,the American sources about the American casualities and UN casualities even can make a clear and affirmative figure,there are 3 major American figures for American casualities each differed themselves alot,and for the Amercian estimation for UN casualities,things goes worse,from the biggest number is 400% more than the smallest number.So I question when the American sources couldnt give their own figures a clear and affirmative views,how can their estimate of chinese casualites be taken granted to add into the infobox for chinese casualities?And when I tried to add the chinese and north korean estimate for the american casualites,someone just simply remove it and claiming the absolute right for american sources,it really astonish me a lot.The discussion pages are filled with chauvinist and nationalist claims such as not to please the chinese or simply the biased illusion.Someone even don't look carefully the american source,when they read a phrase such as the PVA emploied superior strength to attack the frontal line,while infiltrate to the flank and cut off the main supply route,they just scissor the first half of sentence to add weight to their claim,while completely ingonring the latter half of sentence.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He also said that It will not take you very far here.Kfc1864 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

C'mon now, Kysrie, you're just putting words in Mr. Killigan's mouth. He said the articles will tend to be written from a US/UK perspective, because it is the English Wikipedia. He in no place said that it was to a negative degree. If you check other language Wikipedias, you'll find that on a large scale, the English is the most NPOV. As for the discrepancies between the two numbers for American casualties, we've already explained this: it was a clerical error. Some admin clerk simply took the number of US soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen who died during the Korean War timeframe, whether they actually died in Korea or in a driving accident in West Germany (for example). You're one to talk about nationalism. Your edit history isn't exactly unbiased. Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall. Parsecboy 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the NPOV,while you could claim the english wikipedia don't follow the NPOV,but English NPOV.So if you suggest the English NPOV,I recommended you campaign the board of wikimedia to adjust their foundamental policy from the NPOV to local or special or english or simply American NPOV.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't beleive anybody has ever said that Ksyrie. If however, that's how you feel, you are always allowed to contact those such committee's, etc. at your own discretion. ANYWAY, how about keeping comments, etc. on the subject? wbfergus 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, if Parsecboy thinks the issue is over, then its fine. The NPOV page (if I believe so) has a section on western and english speakers' view on the english wikipedia. If Ksyrie wishes to take this to further dispute resolution processes, he can. I just hope that you guys will stop arguing over something petty like how many people died, and instead work towards making this article A-class or even FA status (provided that you all work together). The article is already in good shape, just a little effort will do.

I myself am interested in military history and the Korean War certainly is something of interest to me and I'll help out. Mr. Killigan 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and welcome aboard then. Looking forward to your contributions. wbfergus 10:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

peer review

Does any editor think that we should submit this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review? I ran down through the article and made any changes to grammer mistakes, etc. but I'm wondering if there is any more work to be done until we can request a peer review. Mr. Killigan 06:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A peer review is good, but I think the article itself needs some more work and further clarifications in some areas first. Also, the article is quite large, and it probably needs to be broken out into "sub-pages", but I'm not sure which approach would be better, having separate "articles" for "areas" or just having more "true sub-pages", like Korean War/Phases of Battle or something. I "think" that this has undergone a peer review a few years back, but it keeps getting changed so often many of the previous suggestions have either been negated or fallen by the wayside. I do remember seeing somewhere that other felt it was to long for a single article and needed to be broken up in smaller pages. wbfergus 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I understand. I just requested a peer review, but I do agree that there should be more work before we submit any requests. Mr. Killigan 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

War Crimes section

Okay, something just doesn't look right in the section on War Crimes. First, the section states "South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of alleged “Communist sympathizers” during incidents like the Daejeon and Jeju Massacres; the bodies of these killed were often dumped into mass graves. Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the figure at 100,000."

Then you look over at the picture and it shows a bunch of bodies in a trench. The caption reads "Massacred prisoners are packed into trenches in Daejeon, South Korea, October 1950". These two thereby give the impression that these are the dead bodies of prisoners killed by the South Koreans. However, clicking on the picture itself shows the caption associated with the picture actually reads "Civilians massacred by retreating communist forces during the Korean War are packed into trenches in Taejon, South Korea, October 1950." There is a similar picture on the commons at commons:Taejon massacre.jpg with it's caption also reading "South Korean Civilians murdered by retreating NKPA, Taejon, South Korea".

So, either the non-existent page for the Daejeon Massacre would/should be about the KPA killing of civilians, or there were more than one mass killing of civilians in or around the Daejeon area. Either way, the section needs a partial rewrite to to either specify that Daejeon was KPA killing civilians or stating that Daejeon was the site of multiple mass civilian killings, by both North and South Koreans (if this is in fact true, which I'm not sure of). The caption for the picture on the page should also be reworded to match the real caption of the picture. Comments? wbfergus 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kfc1864 or Cydevil38, since I believe both of you are Korean and maybe in Korea as well, can either of you research this a bit and see which is correct? If either the "Daejeon Massacre" was in fact only about North Koreans killing South Korean civilians, or if there were more than one "Daejeon Massacre" during the Korean War timeframe? Thanks. wbfergus 12:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

SKorea to excavate massacre sites Posted: 04 April 2007 1649 hrs

Photos 1 of 1

South Korean troops exhausted after a night battle 11 January 1951

SEOUL : South Korea will soon start excavating burial sites of civilians massacred by their own troops or police before and during the 1950-53 Korean War, officials said Wednesday.

It will be the first excavation of the remains of civilians killed for alleged espionage or collaboration with communist North Korea, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission said.

Excavations will start next month at four different sites where the remains of at least 5,000 victims are believed to have been buried.

They are among some 150 locations across the country where mass killings of civilians took place before and during the war.

The four locations include one in Sannae village near the central city of Daejeon where thousands of leftist inmates from Daejeon Prison and other suspected communists were massacred by South Koreans.

"The dig is aimed at securing evidence of the massacres and consoling the souls of those who were victimised by state power," commission spokesman Lee Myung-Gon told AFP.

Since the commission came into being in late 2005 following a new law, it has received reports of more than 7,800 cases of civilian killings, he said.

One of the most notorious massacres was in the southern island of Jeju, where historians say around 30,000 were killed during a bloody crackdown on leftist agitators in 1948.

President Roh Moo-Hyun, a former human rights activist, visited Jeju last year to offer an apology for the deaths. He promised to shed light on similar killings that had been hushed up during the Cold War.

South Korea's first president Syngman Rhee, who took office in 1948, was forced into exile in Hawaii in 1960. After a succession of military-backed dictators, the nation became a democracy in 1987.

- AFP/yy[3]

Also, someone removed the parts on the policy of shooting of the aproaching refugees by the US forces and the murderous bridges demolition by the South Koreans. --HanzoHattori 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the picture?

Overview map of the Korean War.

I'm having some problems with the image on the right. When anyone first looks at this collage of maps, they look at the biggest aspect of it: the map on the left side of the picture. Now, I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but this picture here is actually not the end result of the war. In fact, it isn't that close to it. Why are we putting so much emphasis on this particular segment of the war? Are we not seemingly promoting one side of the war, almost as if we are a form of propaganda? Especially with the caption at the bottom that states this is an over view, people will assume that this is indeed the overview of the war, that the united nations succeeded by a long shot. I understand the source obviously wants to promote this idea, and that's understandable, but as an international community and encyclopedia, I don't quite think this is appropriate. My recommendations are as follows: Either:

1) Crop out the rest of the "time line" and other events, and put the map itself up as a segment of the war, with the appropriate captions underneath that does not give the false impression.

2) Resize the middle picture and re-adjust the positioning of the pictures so that all four of them will share equal emphasis. The resolution on the other 3 maps are high enough for this to be done.

3) Find/create maps of the other 3 (or more) segments of the war of equal dimensions.

4) Delete this picture. We have another animation available, of lesser details yes, but with less slant, and still demonstrating the key aspects of it.

These are my suggestions, please criticize or support accordingly or respectably. If no one comments, I guess I'll take the action that I can do with most confidence. --Steven 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be biased, but I don't think the uploader did it in a biased manner. I'm sure most readers will have enough sense to click on the image for a larger picture. I don't think there is any problem with it right now, but its probably safe to look for a better image and/or keep a watch on this. Thanks for your comment. Mr. Killigan 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with Steven, it is sort of biased to show the map at the furthest UN advance largest. The best options in my opinion would be to cut off the rest of the smaller maps, timeline, to leave just the large map, or resize them so they're equal. I might play around with that a little to see how it looks. Parsecboy 13:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Mr. Killigan, that the uploader likely did not upload the imaging with biased intentions. As I've mentioned, the image is quite detailed, and understandable as an important aspect as far as progression of the war goes. However, the source itself is likely biased, and while it's okay for that site to be, we are international, and we should attempt to remove all biases possible, so as to not offend a particular group within this community. I'll also see if I can fiddle around with the image, and I encourage others to do so as well, and we'll update the picture accordingly afterwards. --Steven 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I created a version of the map, and I'll upload it shortly, so you guys can see it, and decide if it's better than the current version or not. I resized the images and cleaned them up some, and chopped off the timeline, because I didn't think it really added much. Parsecboy 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the image I created. Let me know what you guys think. Parsecboy 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be modified to be more NPOV. As for parsecboy's new map, the image gets distorted at full resolution, and it's somewhat difficult to read the details on the map. Is there a way to make this in higher resolution? Also, I think a map like this that describes the course of the war in a single picture is also a good alternative, though parsecboy's new map is more preferrable as it is easier to visually distinguish the course of events and change of fronts. Cydevil38 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the details are pretty distorted at the full resolution. I don't have any fancy image programs, so I don't know if it could be made into a higher resolution image. I suppose I could manually clean it up, but that'll take a little while. I would prefer a map similar to the one I made to the one you linked, for the same reason you stated; it's easier to follow the progress of the war visually. At a first glance, it's pretty easy to see, while your map is sort of confusing. I'll do some more work on my version, and we'll see what we get. Parsecboy 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's Take 2. Let me know what you think. Parsecboy 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it might be more comprehensible as the way we have now. Parsecboy, out of curiosity so we don't work over each other, what software are you using to edit the image? If you haven't already used it, I'll give it a shot with Photoshop after I wake up tomorrow. --Steven 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just using MS paint. Like I said, I don't have anything fancy :). Parsecboy 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic job! This one looks good enough for me for now. I don't think anybody would mind if you went ahead and replaced the picture right now with your new one. We can replace it again if a better version is made later on. Cydevil38 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried it out myself. The problem with trying to resize the main map would be the fact that it has many details within the map that would not stand resizing. I can maintain the major lines indicating the movement of the forces, however, the remainder of the map looks like a big web of indecipherable lines. Any suggestions as to what we can do? Is it possible to superimpose the current map onto a fresh one of higher resolution, so that we do not have to lose everything? (Does anyone have a blank map of the Korea?)--Steven 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I created this blank map of Korea from the two separate NK and SK maps at the World Factbook, if you'd like to play around with it. Parsecboy 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I redid the 4 progressive maps image, except for drawing lines of advance, etc. I'm a little leery of doing so, but if you would like me to send what I've got to you, I can do that. I'm not sure how to find a person's email address on Wikipedia, or even if you have that function enabled, but I'd rather not keep uploading these maps if they're not finished. Or you can do it yourself, just let me know what you want to do. Parsecboy 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I subsituted the work in progress map for the old one, per Cydevil38's suggestion. I think it's better to have a slightly rough NPOV map up than one that is clearly biased towards the UN forces. I plan on trying to clean it up more perhaps sometime this week, when I get time, or if not, then this weekend. Parsecboy 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying things out with not as much luck as you :). I'm looking at the possibility of remaking the map using the blanks, however, that might lead to inaccuracy, i can not tell at this moment. At the current moment, your map looks fine, though... I'm not so fond of the captions for each map... --Steven 03:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I'm a bit hesitant to remake the map using the blank ones. It'd be hard to do accurately, especially since those maps don't have a lot of landmarks (i.e., the rivers aren't on it). I just redid the captions from the original map, we can change them if you like. Parsecboy 12:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sgt. Jun Yong-il

Are[4] and [5] enough to make an article? --HanzoHattori 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd disagree with creating an article for that specific individual. However, I think an article on the South Korean POWs who are still in North Korea is important enough for an article, and Jun Yong-il can be set as an example in such an article. Cydevil38 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You could make an article, there isn't a problem with that. Good friend100 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Mr. Alexander

In an effort to neutralize this article, I'd like to state before hand that I will be removing or severely cutting down Mr. Bevin Alexander's comment on the Chinese army's "tactics" on the ground of neutrality and lack of importance in that particular section. For reference, the quote is as follows:

The Chinese had no air power and were armed only with rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, and mortars. Against the much more heavily armed Americans, they adapted a technique they had used against the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War of 1946–49. The Chinese generally attacked at night and tried to close in on a small troop position — generally a platoon — and then attacked it with local superiority in numbers. The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics.

First off, the first segment of the first line is contradicting a quote here which reads:

Simultaneously, the Kremlin agreed to supply the Chinese and North Koreans with their own MiG-15s, as well as training for their pilots.

hence proving that the Chinese did have their own air combat abilities. Secondly, the quote states that the Chinese were armed with only rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, and mortars. Please tell me what the Americans were armed with then. Rifles? Machines guns? No sarcasm intended, I seriously am not sure here, but I do not like it's wording. Modern world still uses assault rifles, machine guns and hand grenades, must we have the world ONLY in there? From that point, I'd say the stress that the Americans were more heavily armed to be unnecessary, since we are not given the proof to judge that. The following sentence is better, but i find that it seems as if the Chinese are almost bullies in this situation... The Chinese attacking a SMALL troop position... local superiority in numbers. In reality, it's completely unnecessary to mention this line, when the next two lines adequately state the actual tactic quite clearly and lacking the imagery of the former line.

One final thing. At it's place in this article, I feel that the quote is out of position. The previous line discusses the UN's wish for peace, and this discusses the tactics of the Chinese. Where should it be repositioned at?

--Steven 04:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at the beginning most of the Chinese were armed ONLY with grenades and satchel charges. Possibly knives too, if this counts. Yes, they had no rifles, no machine guns, and no pistols neither. Some 70 artillery guns and heavy mortars (or one per several thousand soldiers). Was this ("no sarcasm intended") really what the Americans were armed with?

Later, they were better armed, though. Meaning they had anything to shoot with, and as you mentioned EVEN some Soviet-supplied aircraft. --HanzoHattori 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, restore the content you removed through your ignorance (even if it actually shows them better armed when they first were when they entered the war, and did their best against the surprised UN forces - but this may be adjusted by edits, not simply removing). This TOO was discussed here, so see the archives. --HanzoHattori 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing was removed to begin with. Please read carefully that I will remove/cut down on the quote. Secondly, do you have any proof at all about this "grenade and knives only" fact? As far as I know, the Chinese Civil war was not fought with sticks and stones but rather with guns, and so it makes no logical sense to use such primitive weapons in a modern world. Furthermore, reread the quote, it has no mentioning of time, why are we automatically assuming that it's the beginning of the war? You are adding too much facts to this otherwise unqualified quote that, to a common reader, this would not be available to them. --Steven 19:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fireswordfight, I believe the significance of the bit there is that the Chinese had no heavy weapons, while the Americans did. The Chinese had no tanks, very little artillery, and what they did have was often only short range mortars, not 100mm+ howitzers. The Americans dwarfed them in air and naval power. There is a huge difference between how the Chinese and UN forces were armed. Parsecboy 19:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough comment Parsecboy, and if you put that in the article, I would have absolutely no problem with it. However, the wording of the quote is what I do not like. Indeed, the Americans were well armed, however, the quote isn't completely right if you read it. If everyone feels compelled to state the fact that the Americans were well armed, then sure, but I do not like the way things are put by the quote. I suggest the following changes:

The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics.

as we are merely discussing the tactics of the troops. The comparison of how well armed everyone is can be placed (if it does not already exist) elsewhere. --Steven 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording might need to be slightly modified, but I think it's important to explain why the Chinese adapted these tactics (namely, they were only a light infantry force, that could not go toe to toe with the mechanized Americans). Perhaps simplify the "rifles, machine guns, etc." bit to just "light infantry weapons" or something along those lines, and then make the connection that it's because they didn't have heavy fire support that they could not openly attack American positions. Parsecboy 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New proposal then:

The Chinese soldiers lacked heavy fire support, and so their tactics adapted to this disadvantage, as explained by Bevin Alexander in his book How Wars Are Won:

The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics.

We should also find a new position for this quote, as it is out of context in its current position. --Steven 20:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair to me. Perhaps it would fit better in the "The Chinese entry (October, 1950)" section? Parsecboy 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But they lacked weapons of almost any kind, not only "heavy fire support". The lacked firearms of any type. --HanzoHattori 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact they initially also lacked the "light infantry weapons" too - besides hand-held explosives. Read, for example, [6]. --HanzoHattori 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Block quote

Working on it, i'll see if I can incoperate the light infantry weapons part in too HanzoHattori. --Steven 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I added what you stated HanzoHattori--Steven 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Parsecboy 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased images

The "neutral" choice of images are questionable in this article. We see American soldiers firings in various photos, and then the only dead solider lying is a Chinese one. The not-so-subtle intention to glorify one side of the conflict is inconsistent with the neutral stance of wikipedia. (Postdoc 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

Well, if you have free images of Chinese or North Korean soldiers in combat, upload them, and I'm sure we'll all be happy to include them. Search the commons. It's pretty much all American soldiers, because that's what's most readily available. Parsecboy 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have serious reservation about the so-called "combat pictures". Much of those look like staged to me, including those posted on this website. The motivation to pick "combat" pictures from one side and "dead" picture from another side reflects the personal choices of the editors, in my opinion. The bias can also be seen in other pictures (the plane been shot down and the graphic massacre). In addition, I question the value to put those pictures into a article like this in wikipedia. Do these pictures help readers to understand this article objectively? Or do these picture actually convey someone's personal view to the readers?

For the same reason, I don't see how the "combat pictures" from the PVA/North Korean side can help to present a objective view to readers on the subject of Korean war.

On the other hand, "non-combat" picture may serve some purpose. For example, to compare the equipments of the two sides. (Postdoc 16:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

I think combat images are useful, for several reasons. They serve the same purpose of "non-combat" pictures, in that they show the weaponry and equipment being used, as it was used. Also, most readers of these articles know next to nothing about how the men actually fought (i.e., the conditions, etc.). These images can be useful in visually describing it. As for the tendency to use American images instead of Chinese or North Korean, as I explained above; we're limited to what images we can obtain. I ran into the same problem when I was making the montage at the start of the article. The US produced probably thousands on images from the war, all of which are in the public domain. We obviously do not have access to Chinese and North Korean government archives, and it's not like Xinhua was following the PVA around, taking pictures. Like I said above, if you have public domain (or even fair use) images of PRC or DPRK soldiers, I'd love to see them uploaded and added to this article. Parsecboy 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, some of them likely are staged, but many of them aren't. The MiG-15 from a F-86's gun camera isn't staged. I doubt the Sherman firing is either. Parsecboy 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just do a quick google search. This and this are the only two images I could find in the first few pages of actual Chinese soldiers, other than those captured or dead. Their copyright status is unknown. Parsecboy 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that when I looked at this page 1-2 years ago, I saw a picture of Chinese soldiers in a gathering, with detailed description of their equipments. If my memory is correct, then the picture is removed in the current edition. (Postdoc 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

I've only become involved in this page recently (less than a year), so I can't say one way or the other as to the fate of that picture. It may have been unlicensed, or it used an old tag and wasn't fixed, so it got deleted. It's not in the Commons as far as I can tell. Perhaps it's only uploaded to Wikipedia somewhere. Parsecboy 18:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Postdoc, if you can pinpoint the time to within 500 or so edits, why don't you go back and see for yourself? If the picture is there in those edits, we can use it, and if not, take a look at the caption or post it here so we all know what we're looking for. Aside from that, I think we can dig around to see if there are any pictures lying around on the commons or in google or something. But as Parsecboy stated, there just are too many pictures of the american side of the war that the other pictures gets drowned out, making looking for things other then Americans truly hard. We can reduce bias however, by taking out some of the pictures... like that Chinese dead solder. What are we looking at when we see the picture? I don't really know, it doesn't tell much, and it isn't significant to the article. For starters, who agrees to remove that? --Steven 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just look for an image with a dead American soldier? Understand that there will be some bias here at english wikipedia. English users are mostly limited to images of the Korean War taken from the American side. Mr. Killigan 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, guys, we're getting off the point/article, and we're becoming a bit unproductive with our bickering. I'm not going to start saying that the whole wiki is biased, because i have found some pages that are very well covered on both sides and what not. The point is, on this talk page, let us focus on the Korean War. The fact is, I think everyone understands that in wars, people die. My point of argument is that, I'd understand if there was a picture littered with bodies, as this shows the tragedies of war. However, when shown one picture of one dead soldier with flies flying over him, what does that tell us? We already know people die in war, if we are really keen in telling them that soldiers die, show them a battle field or something. There is no particular need to focus in on one dead Chinese soldier, no point at all. This is no longer purely a point of NPOV, but also a matter of usefulness, and hence, having a dead American soldier in this article and calling it even is not the solution to this. This is why I say we remove the picture completely, rather then "balancing it out". --Steven 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently someone add it the article of death check the previous version [7],and check the editor to change me edit to a dead german soldier,with this link [8] and noticing the edit summarycompromise pic--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Steven. The image really isn't useful for much of anything. I've gotta give you props for sneaking the removal of it in with the edits about the Chinese weaponry ;) Parsecboy 23:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I couldn't help myself, it was right there and so sticking out =) Anyways, I think that's taken care of, and from this point of view, while some may say that we're lacking pictures of chinese soldiers, i think this is probably the best we can do for now, other then to keep our eyes open. All agree? --Steven 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not needed, I agree. Stuff like bickering about casualty lists and arguing over one insignificant picture is something I keep seeing though. Mr. Killigan 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Image:DeadchinesesoldierEdit.jpg is a featured picture, you can't just remove it from the article, the community decided it was one of the finest images on wikipedia. Bleh999 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we'll have to denominated it first then. The support comments were rather... pointless to begin with... Wonderful? Beautiful? Are those words you really need to describe dead soldiers with? Um... If someone agrees with me to denominate this picture first since that is the only way to remove this type of picture, then i'll put up a review for it.--Steven

No one is going to stop you from trying to list it for delisting from featured pictures, but ones that were nominated so recently aren't usually delisted unless they aren't up to the current standards, this doesn't usually apply to historical pictures.

Besides I'm not really sure what you have against this image, to me it's somewhat tragic, but a good representation of what happens in a war and when people allow their leaders to goto war, I don't see anything anti Chinese in it. Even if you remove it from this article there are a few other websites hosting the same picture including PBS and the department of defense imagery website. Bleh999 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh999, you might want to read over our whole conversation if you haven't already done so. We are disputing the neutrality of the article here, and someone has made a point over the fact that there are a) too many pictures of American soldiers and their fine weaponary, and b) almost no pictures of the opposing side, other then pictures of lost causes, such as a shot down MiG and a dead soldier. The shot down MiG... well, I can't argue for its importance, but the image of the dead soldier i do not like. It is one, biased, as in this whole article we only have 1 picture of a chinese soldier, and it is a dead one, and two, it adds no significance to the article (contrary to what the nomination supporters say for it's Featured picture status).

While Parsecboy suggested that this picture shows the tragedy of war initially, i would like to state... hopefully, a majority of the people coming to this site will understand that yes, in war, people die. I'm afraid however, the importance of this picture ends there. Many viewers do not know how many people die in the war, or the size of it and the cost of it, but this sole picture tells us none of that. If we want to portray death of thousands, do not show them a picture of 1 dead soldier, show them a battlefield littered with bodies, cause that's what hits the nail home.

As far as biases go, I do not want someone to put up a picture of a dead us soldier and call it even, because this isn't only an issue of how bias pictures are, it's a matter of relevance, and here, the picture is irrelevant. If someone wanted to see a dead object, they can search up Death, not Korean War.

Ofcourse, it's rather pointless to argue about the picture here. I'm merely seeing if i'll have anyone supporting my Delist request before I put it up, so as to save me the effort. If someone is willingly supporting me with a delist nomination, i'll post it up. --Steven 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the delist,originally,the pic meant to show the cruelity of war,but this articles contains too much american soldiers fighting the war,merely impress the readers,it's another good american amry fought the evil chinese and north korean invaders.In fact,US force is the first Foreign intervertion force to the originally civil war between the Koreans.Without the US intervention,the War won't go so large scale.And the main contributors here make this article to be one american propaganda article.My suggest,deleting some US army image,add some Korean ones and chinese one,especailly some civiliian ones.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ksyrie has been trying to remove the image for a while, you may wish to hear some more neutral opinions (no offense intended), and about the images of US soldiers and others, I think it's mostly because the US gov gives public access to a lot of their military images, I'm not sure if the Chinese government has an archive somewhere of their war pictures, if you could find it or maybe even scan from a book with all the proper attributions (date, author if listed, location) I would support adding to this article, if you notice the Vietnam war article has no pictures of NVA/vietcong in action either (other than captured ones) Bleh999 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to a delist. "as in this whole article we only have 1 picture of a chinese soldier, and it is a dead one," is an incorrect statement, as the montage itself at the top of the page shows Chinese soldiers returning home. I think that what would be more appropriate regarding pictures would be for somebody to create a gallery of pictures, probably via a category or whatever on the commons, gathering all of the Korean War pictures together in one place and making them all readily viewable to anybody wanting to peruse the pictures. wbfergus 10:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry then, in this whole article we only have 2 picture of a chinese soldier, and one of them is a dead one and the other... is a tad bit difficult to make out clearly. Make a difference? The point still stands that this still a problem of importance. What good is it to see a picture of one dead person when we're trying to show people the cruelties and costs of war with thousands of death? One dead person does not portray this in any way shape or form. Furthermore, again Bleh999, we agreed a while back about the limited availability of chines photos and so i'm not to keen about evening out the number count. However, the importance of this particular photo is outweighed by it's subtle biase. I do like the idea of a gallery however, since we do have a lot of pictures of this article... however, I'm not so sure how diverse this gallery will be and how much it'll help the general article overall. --Steven

Well, a start to a gallery is already done over on the Commons, at commons:Korean War. The article itself can reference the Gallery there as something like "More pictures available", and then the number of pictures embedded within the article can be decreased. The gallery itself will only be as diverse as the respective governments will allow. I know there had to be "some" Chinese in the Korean War who had cameras, but will the Chinese government ever allow those pictures to become public domain or not is another story. So, just because the Chinese (or North Korean) government doesn't release any pictures into the public domain does not mean that we can't use any pictures released by the U.S. government because of fears of bias. wbfergus 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't solve the dead soldier problem, as i'm sure Bleh999 will not allow it to be removed on the grounds that it is a featured picture. Otherwise, I think it's a wonderful idea.--Steven 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bleh999,it seems it's you who added a second dead chinese pic in the artilce,aha？check this version[9]

[[10]] and [[11]] .You are so obsessed with the dead chinese solidiers pics,to the extend which is far beyond what I meant to show the cruelity of war,rather to show off the american achievement,and it's you who replaced a pic titled with deadUsMarien with a dead german one with a footnote compromise pic.You seemed to be very happy to see the dead solidiers from other nations,and cann't tolerate a one from US.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, stop bringing up Death here. It's unrelated to this article, and doesn't need to be discussed here. Also, remember to assume good faith. Just because Bleh999 re-added the image of the dead Chinese soldier doesn't mean he's "obsessed" with it. Again, the image you used to replace the dead Chinese soldier at Death was clearly mislabeled, and appears that you were editing to prove a point there, so changing picture with the intent of compromise is perfectly fine. Oh, and by the way, everything you're accusing Bleh999 of here is applicable to you. Parsecboy 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, what's your opinion on attempting to delist the Featured Picture status of the dead chinese soldier?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireswordfight (talk • contribs).

To be honest, I don't really know what criteria is used to judge photos for Featured Picture status, so I can't say one way or the other. It doesn't really add much to this article though. As such, I'll stop short of advocating delisting it or not, until I know more about the process, etc. Parsecboy 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My idea is that we should find out what battle the picture of the dead Chinese soldier is from and add it to that article instead of this article, because it will be most relevant there and add the most context to the article. Ksyrie, don't add pictures to the talk page unless you have a really good reason, this isn't a soapbox, I removed them. Maybe you should consider that the others, such as Germans, Japanese and Iraqis aren't obsessed with removing images of their dead soldiers as much as you are, and it's just one image Bleh999 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically even the Chinese wikipedia has more pictures of American soldiers and only 1 picture of Chinese soldiers during the Korean war and that is low res and quality Bleh999 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's natural,currently more editors from Taiwan edits the chinese wikipedia,and little or no chinese wikipedia from Mainland China.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because wikipedia is banned in mainland China Bleh999 08:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Casus Belli?

The reason for the war is not the war itself - this is whathe article is saying by listing the North's attack on the South as a Casus belli. The Casus Belli was the fact that Kores was divided and that the North percieved the south as a threat to its socialist/communist aims.Tourskin 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Most allies vs. allies style war articles have casus belli as some sort of proto-conflict between two states. --NEMT 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The images are neutral. There are more American military images because North Korean images eitehr dpon't exist because NK and Chinese soldiers didn't have cameras with them (it must be said that the greatly industrialized US had more chance of having soldiers with cams) or these images are censored and unavailable for us. Tourskin 03:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Depictions

The film "Pork Chop Hill," directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Gregory Peck, is not included. I should think that this film would deserve inclusion, as it is regarded by many as one of the best war films of all time.66.212.142.202 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Put it in!Kfc1864 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A class review

I improved the article a lot and followed through the peer review that was requested. Do any of you guys think this can be an A-class article? Mr. Killigan 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against this thought of review. It is a good article, I'll give it that, and one that deserves it's current class. However, as stated above, there are some major issues of neutrality that must be taken care of before a review should even be considered. --Steven 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, what neutrality issues are so bad that you say that a review should not "even be considered"? I don't see anything that is heavily biased. Mr. Killigan 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is neutral enough, you can't rewrite history to appease everyone. Bleh999 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why do we even bother with NPOV within historical articles at all? In your point of view, what I see as "historically correct" is wrong to you, and that's not a problem, since history is not meant to appease everyone. --Steven 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you list some of the specific concerns you have with the content of the article, otherwise I'm not sure what you are referring to, unless you mean the 'neutrality of the images' which is a totally different matter. Bleh999 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do believe the neutrality of the images hinder the ability of the article. As far as the text goes, I'm happy with the change to the Bevin Alexander quote, however, I think the image usage are as much an aspect for the article as the text itself, and if there exists bias in the image, there is bias overall. --Steven 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats not specific. How can one entire article be biased? Nobody else thinks theres heavy bias in the article. Mr. Killigan 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On that note, no one else has given an opinion. --Steven 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to ask Steven that too. Mr. Killigan 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, the section on Mao's motive reads like a propaganda. This section of speculation is essentially a short commercial for a work written by a Chinese author with controversies (though with the help of her husband). Although the book is a commercial success, speculation is not a scholar approach to document historical events. It is also out of place that this speculation is listed in the course of war. (Postdoc 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC))