Talk:Korean War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Nuclear Weapons section

Suggested material for nuclear weapons section. According to historian Bruce Cumings, Truman publicly threatened the use of the atomic bomb when the People's Republic of China entered the war (following MacArthur's crossing of the 38th parallel). This was a possibility that had been discussed and included in contingency plans. On the day Truman threatened use of atomic bomb, Air Force General Stratemeyer sent order to General Hoyt Vandenberg that the Strategic Air Command augment its capacities and that this should include “atomic capabilities”. MacArthur requested use of atomic bombs in 24 Dec 1950, although it was not approved, and a subsequent request by his successor General Ridgeway for the same in May 1951 was refused. The main reason the weapons were not used was because of a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate. See Bruce Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun: A History, WW Norton & Company, 1997, pp 289-92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.125.92 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but we've already decided to pull Cumings' references due to problems over undue weight. John Smith's 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a misleading statement with which I very much disagree. There was a great deal of debate about whether Cumings was acceptable or not (see the archive, for example here and also Talk:Bruce Cumings) and I for one think he is a perfectly acceptable source. He is, undeniably, a leading scholar on the Korean War. Some people disagree with him, he is "controversial" in some circles, but he is considered a leading scholar and this has been demonstrated by several editors including myself--pretending there is consensus to never cite a U of Chicago prof on his area of expertise is not going to fly. He should not be allowed to dominate the article, of course, but it is utterly absurd to ban him completely. It also violates Wiki policies about representing a multiplicity of views and is, in my opinion, a bit anti-intellectual. I am not familiar with the specifics of the nuke scenario described by 86.153.125.92 above, but unless there is countervailing evidence that suggests this is way off base I would argue that it is very reasonable for this view to be represented (unless of course it already is in some fashion--I have not even checked).

In general I think Cumings can be used as a source, so long he is not used notably more than others and so long as we do not put in specific claims he makes which have been severely called into question by other scholars.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cumings was pulled - there's disagreement over whether he is a suitable source or not. However, if you want to say that he should be allowed in, I could equally insist on Chang and Halliday having a place here - a "ban" on their views would also violate wikipedia policy and be a bit anti-intellectual, as you put it. So where are we going to go on this? John Smith's 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I know he was pulled, but the fact is that there are several other editors who disagree with this. Your first comment in reply to the anon user implied there was consensus about the issue, but obviously there is not and I was pointing this out. I strongly, strongly believe he is (in general, but not in all specifics) a valid source and that is where I am going with my comment. No remotely convincing case explaining why a leading scholar on the war cannot be cited (at all!) has been presented (the case as it stands basically consists of the idea that he is "controversial" and that some people hate his politics--neither of which obviate the fact that he is an acknowledged authority in the field). The fact that a decision to pull him was made earlier does not matter that much to me since it was not a consensus decision and since the rationale for it was incredibly weak.

Tangentially, since this is not so much what I'm concerned about at this point, there is simply no quid pro quo between inclusion or non-inclusion of Cumings and the Chang/Halliday book. I still do not know enough about the latter to say what should be done with it (I'm looking at the China Journal reviews now), but Cumings and Chang/Halliday can and should be evaluated as sources independently of one another--they have no relation except that I think you argued to remove Cumings after Chang/Halliday was removed. All I know is that Cumings is a respected historian in the field and is easily a valid source for our purpose. I also know that the Chang/Halliday book is primarily about Mao (so including it does not make intrinsic sense--the war is obviously not the focus), that Chang is not a historian at all, and that Halliday, while a historian, is not focused on the Korean War, while the one book he wrote on the war he co-wrote with Cumings. Prima facie it seems to me that the Chang/Halliday book (not about the war, and by two non-specialists) is thus far less ripe for inclusion than anything by Cumings (who is a specialist on the topic). This does not preclude the fact that the former can be included--perhaps it can, I really don't know for certain though I might firm up my position on that. My point is that Cumings obviously can be included, and that the two sources need to be considered separately and on their own merits rather than in comparison to one another. Saying "if this one, then that one" is not a logical argument as they are two completely different sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That Cumings is a "leading scholar" is an opinion, not fact - please remember that.

On Chang and Halliday, I was pointing out that some of the arguments you've used apply to them just as much as they do to Cumings. Though I should point out that you do not need to be a professional historian to write on history - being one does not make you automatically more credible than one who is not. Equally that in the past one has concentrated on certain fields does not mean that person cannot move into another one.

I don't oppose any reference to Cumings, but at the same time I would object to anyone who refused a reference from Chang & Halliday without a specific reason. John Smith's 20:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder at what point does the assertion "leading scholar" become fact as opposed to opinion? Who, according to you are "leading scholars" of the Korean War and what is your criteria? What is the appropriate criteria for wikipedia? We know that Cumings has received several awards for Korean scholarship including one from the republic of Korea itself, we know that he is widely cited in the field, and even that many of those scholars who disagree with him have acknowledged his importance and his scholarship. All of this is easily demonstrable. What evidence do you have to offer to demonstrate that Cumings views are negatable with regards to this article? The suggestion at hand pertains to a paragraph referencing the work of Cumings, what do Chang and Halliday have to do with this? BernardL 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bernard, "leading scholar" is a subjective term. An award is evidence that a particular body respects his or her work - there is no "international history committee" that can award such status. I'm not sure of any scholar in any field that I would term "leading".

By the way, please do not put text in via a minor edit - that isn't what the function is for. I think you made a mistake there, so I retract my edit summary comment that you were trying to sneak it in. But let's discuss the content a bit more, please.

I brought Chang and Halliday up as their works were objected to because of academic criticism. I pointed out that if criticism in the field cannot prohibit reference to Cumings' work then that should apply to them as well. John Smith's 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the current version more acceptable? Cumings statement is included, but contradicted by 5 paragraphs of historical facts, as cited in the section. wbfergus ^Talk 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is more acceptable. Needs tweaking in places (only had a quick look), but much more balanced. John Smith's 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BernardL, that he recieved that Kim Dae Jung award (the very first ever awarded to anybody), is not notable in and of itself, as I remeber somebody else saying somewhere. Maybe after some amount of time has passed and there is widespread agreement that all of the future awardees are truly worthy of such an award, then it would hold some weight. As it is now though, there is nothing to base the significance of the award on. Is it purely political or is it truly for something worthy? Only time will tell, and not enough time has elapsed yet. wbfergus ^Talk 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. John Smith's 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be looking over fergus's contribution in detail in due time. That Cumings was chosen as the first historian of Korea to receive the award when there were so many available to choose from certainly is notable. That fergus and the workmate he recruited deny any importance to this award and even impugn Nobel Laureate Kim Dae Jung only suggests the POV of their own position.BernardL 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to impugn Kim Dae Jung[1][2][3], and many, many more Google hits. Others have already done that. Regarding the article's section, let the documented facts speak for themselves. wbfergus ^Talk 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you POV statement, if you seriously want to improve the article, go right ahead. It needs an awful lot of copyeditting to get things flowing smoothly. But, if all you are interested in is trying to weasel in some contentious claims that are disputed by the facts, please try to find another article. This one needs enough work without wasting time refuting contentious claims. wbfergus ^Talk 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to John Smith's and wbfergus above re: Cumings. Of course "leading scholar" is a subjective term. Evaluating the expertise of anyone on any topic is always, always subjective. If we let that stop us we could never determine the expertise/reliability of any source, but of course we do (John Smith's comment that he is not sure of anyone he would term a "leading scholar" in any field is quite strange--labeling a given scholar leading or important is something that happens in most all fields (certainly in history) all of the time, so I really don't get where he's coming from).

The way one should determine the expertise of someone in a given area is by considering how other scholars in the field view their work. John and wbfergus and some others apparently don't think Cumings is an expert/leading scholar, but that is quite irrelevant. What is relevant is several points that have already been brought up. As I noted once before, "Cumings' books have been reviewed in H-Net, Pacific Historical Review, the Journal of Interdisciplinary History, the Journal of American History, American Historical Review, Reviews in American History, Journal of Military History, and Political Science Quarterly--i.e. by basically all of the notable academic journals which cover his topic. Writing in Reviews in American History, respected historian Burton Kaufman...noted that Cumings' book The Origin of the Korean War was "an exceptional work in both conception and execution" and that Cumings had "established a reputation as one of the nation's leading experts on the war."" BernardL provided further evidence of the view scholars hold of him here (particularly some of the 7 numbered points), and wbfergus provided us the article Major Trends of Korean Historiography in the US which includes an entire section on Cumings and even mentions that he had a cadre of students who he has influenced and who are beginning to publish.

So can we please end this debate, which is utterly pointless and more than a bit embarrassing, about whether or not a key/leading/important/respected/whatever-term-you-want-to-use scholar in the field can be cited? As to the Kim Dae Jung award, go ahead and dismiss it if you like (though personally I see no reason to). Cumings is clearly a respected scholar in the field regardless. I would hope though that that award would give pause to anyone who wants to label Cumings as having an "alleged 'left-wing, pro-North Korean'" as wbfergus did. If he is so pro-NK, why an award from the South Korean government? Seems a bit odd (and wbfergus's speculation that the award is perhaps "purely political" while he still thinks Cumings has a NK bias is a bit funny--Cumings really knows how to play both sides I guess!).

Regardless, sticking in the "alleged 'left-wing, pro-North Korean'" phrase after Cumings name is a blatant violation of NPOV, just as it would be a violation to refer to George W. Bush casually in an article in which he was quoted as an "alleged fascist" or FDR as an "alleged communist." I should have thought that that would be obvious, but I guess not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the new material added by BernardL and wbfergus. It seems Bernard was using a long block quote from Cumings and I don't think that is desirable, rather the key points should be summarized. Also as John Smith's said above the addition should not have been listed as a minor edit but that could easily have been a mistake.

The Cumings material does not really seem that controversial to me though, and in fact I'm not entirely clear how it is different from some of the material in the rest of the section. wbfergus claims that Cumings' view "is contradicted however by the facts," but the material that follows seems largely in agreement with Cumings. Basically Cumings says Truman threatened the use of the atomic bomb (which he did at a press conference), that it was considered, but ultimately rejected. Perhaps the novelty in Cumings' claim is the phrase "the main reason the weapons were not used was because of a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate" but I'm not sure. It's unclear to me what the debate is, or how what Cumings wrote is contradicted by the facts.

The whole section needs to be revised (and cited much more thoroughly--readers have no idea where the discussion of the "three postulates" comes from) and generally cleaned up. The discussion of the three hypothetical situations is a bit confusing (how do they relate to what actually happened?) and the third one does not seem to relate at all to nuclear weapons, at least as written, which is what the section should be focused on. I don't know the source material for this stuff, but it needs to be synthesized in a more coherent fashion. If Cumings is making a novel and notable claim about the nuke option then that claim should be mentioned, but right now I don't really understand what is important/new in the passage cited by BernardL or how wbfergus's additions go against that passage.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, it seems that we keep posting over each other. I think perhaps I adderessed several of your points with the last paragraph. Without engaging in OR or synthesis, I tried to recap the events as both sources stated. Regarding the other 5 paragraphs, they were pretty much like Bernard's, except the concepts expressed were extensive, and I didn't know how summarise them properly without walking down the path of synthesis or making the entire section seem out of context to the points stated within the quoted work. Is there a better (more readable) way of showing that those 5 paragraphs are all part of the same 'cite'? wbfergus ^Talk 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the five paragraphs, it might be better to put footnotes after each one--I don't think this would be a huge stylistic problem, but maybe there's a better solution--right now it seems more like the last paragraph is sourced but the others are not. I'm still unclear why it's necessary to go into so much detail about the three hypotheses, and also don't really understand how they relate to the ultimate decision to not use the bomb. I have a feeling that a lot of it could be trimmed, using only the parts of the scenarios that relate fairly directly to the idea of using atomic weapons.

In the last paragraph you added, I think the sentence "the decision not to use the atomic bomb was also not due to "a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate", but rather due to pressure from UN allies, notably Britain, the British Commonwealth, and France" is problematic as it is OR. Cumings argued one thing, another source argued another, and you (i.e. we, wikipedia) sided with the latter source. We can't really do this, though I have no idea which source is more accurate in my judgment. Also while I appreciate the effort to summarize the section, I think it would be better if we could hit the key points throughout in a more succinct fashion (with various viewpoints expressed) and then avoid a summary.

I think we need BernardL (who I assume has Cumings' book) to clarify what Cumings is saying since I'm a bit fuzzy on that passage and I think most readers would be as well. Perhaps then we could make a list of the key points that need to be addressed in this section (including the exact chronology) and then use multiple sources for any points that are highly contentious (assuming there are some). I think it might be good to rewrite/reorganize most of the section, although obviously some of the stuff we have now can be used.

Finally, I would note to wbfergus that the sources he is using are obviously not the best (a book published by the army in 1972, and the Knightley book from 1982 which is about war correspondents in different conflicts--not about the Korean War). Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun is a better source than either of these, but really we should be using material from recent books written directly about the war. I assume the nuke questions are covered pretty thoroughly in such sources, as they are extremely important both for this conflict but also for their wider geopolitical ramifications. Also an earlier version mentioned something about Ike intimating he would use nukes if NK failed to sign the peace treaty in 1953. That was unsourced so it's good that it was removed, but if true it would obviously be worthy of discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried finding the reference to Ike and the bomb, but couldn't find it in the online book sources I usually check (Center for Military History - Korean War, Command and General Staff College, and Military History Institute), though it's possible I missed it. I was just opening up the different chapters, etc. and doing a search for either "atomic" or "nuclear". The sources may be a bit biased, but they are all peer-reviewed before publishing, and meet all of the criteria for verifiable and reliable sources. Schnabel himself was an army historian in Tokyo during the Korean War, so he isn't tainted from being an actual participant, but also had access to many military documents (casualty reports, situation reports, etc.) shortly after they were created that many follow-on historians would neglect or otherwise gloss over. The date of the publication is irrelevant in this case.

Regarding why I included the three hypotheses, the last clearly didn't mention the possibility of using the bomb, but it is important to note that a non-nuclear solution was considered as well, it wasn't just a bunch of guys sitting around trying to justify the use of a nuke. They examined in detail possible alternatives and the consequences, and those were the three viable solutions that they saw to minimize UN casulties, which was their whole point. They wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they considered how to minimize Chinese or NK casualties, that goes completely against common sense in a conflict to maximize your enemies casualties.

My statement about why the bomb wasn't isn't OR at all, but rather stated in the text that I cited, though I did try to summarize that, as it was split across several pages and many paragraphs. I in no way though changed the context or the meaning of the words, so therefore it wasn't synthesis or other original research. I'll go ahead and add the additional ref's at the end of each paragraph, we'll at least get a chance to see how it looks. wbfergus ^Talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources you have are fine for now, I would definitely not remove them, I'm just saying we should try to find better ones, which I think would be fairly easy to do (for example I'm sure the Burton Kaufman and William Stueck--both of whom are excellent scholars--would be helpful). The date of the Schnabel book is extremely relevant, as is the fact that it was published by the army. The best sources are going to be academic historians in the field, and the key documents about the decision on the bomb in Korea are going to come from declassified documents from the Truman administration (minutes from NSC meetings, etc.), most of which will be at the Truman Library or the National Archives. Many if not most of these documents were not declassified in 1972, so Schnabel could not have used them. There might be whole books or articles (I'm sure there are the latter) just about the nuke issue, and recent publications along these lines would be the best.

Just to clarify on the OR issue, it's not because you summarized it improperly or anything like that. It's because we have two sources (Cumings and yours) which offered two different explanations for why the US did not go the nuclear route. I have no idea which one I find believable, but as it stands we cannot arbitrarily endorse one over the other and if we do (which is basically what you did) that is an OR violation. I think the best way to clear this up is to find some better sourcing (better than Cumings and the other two) that is more authoritative on these issues.

Finally with the three hypotheses (and thanks for adding in the footnotes, that clears up the sourcing issue), I still think you should try to shorten/synthesize them considerably, sticking to the key points about nukes. Or we could just try to find some better sources and let the thing sit as is for awhile. I'll do a quick search now and see if I can come up with an article or two in some academic journals.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Wait a minute. I just realized the "three hypotheses" section added by wbfergus was taken verbatim from here. This is a massive copyvio and must be removed immediately which is what I am going to do. I'm not saying anything about the content, but we can't steal whole blocks of text (not even with quotation marks, much less without them) and insert them in an article. wbfergus you really should know better than that. If you want to put this back in somehow please paraphrase the salient points and/or use quote marks when you quote directly. I have to deal with enough of this stuff with my undergraduate's papers--though they copy from Wikipedia!--and certainly don't want to see it here. The section might not make sense for awhile but we can't keep that copyvio stuff in any longer.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, to wbfergus or anyone else, if anything else has been added to this article in copyright violation as was the material I just removed, please go take it out right away. We can always re-add the information later in a way that does not violate copyright.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the source I used is a copyright violation, though maybe the one from Cumings is (since it is a verbatim quote from his book), I don't know though, I'll let you decide since you are so worried about this aspect. However, the one I used, as you previously stated, is from the Army, a US Government entity. As such, it is not copyrighted, as it wasn't conducted by somebody under contract to the army. See United States Code; Title 17; Chapter 1; § 105 Subject matter of copyright; United States Government works.

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

I'm not a lawyer, that sure sounds like Government works aren't copyrighted if the work is not specifically flagged as copyrighted, which this one isn't. wbfergus ^Talk 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the document again, and I can't find any copyright notice anywhere in it. It also clearly states on the inside cover (first page): CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY. So, it looks like this is not a copyright violation, and I'll re-add it, though I will agree that it does need some editing somehow. I'll take a stab at it later today or later this week and see what I can come up with. wbfergus ^Talk 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

IANAL either, but I would be quite shocked if James F. Schnabel, the author, did not have some copyright claims considering it is his work. I don't know if the fact that it is a US army publication has any bearing, and since you are not a lawyer the fact that you plucked out one section of the US code does not persuade me either way. Also we're looking at an internet reproduction of the work, not the original text, which may or may not have a copyright claim on it. Wikipedia has a rather strong policy on copyright infringement (we assume there is a copyright unless we know otherwise), so I think we very much want to err on the side of non-inclusion. I must say I find it strange that we are even arguing about this.

But aside from that, and this should be obvious, we don't want to merely copy three paragraphs from one author's work (an old, outdated work at that) and just dump it in the article (I already made the same complaint about the Cumings passage, but at least that is quoted and is a much smaller section of text). Please try to edit this down asap (not in a week), and the best thing to do is just remove it wholesale while you are working on it, in case it is a copyright violation (I might do that again myself, but I think you should do it as I don't want to edit war about this). Also, please use quotes when you are quoting someone. That's what they are for, and it's very weird to have to point that out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, shortened and re-worded so that it is not a direct quote. The (legal) code I quoted though was verbatim from the Wikipedia copyright policy page, it wasn't something I pulled out of the air. I assumed that if it was part of official policy, there must be some validity in it. If Schnabel does have any copyrights on his work, it would be listed under a subsequent publication not affiliated in any way with the US Government and through an independent publisher. The Center for Miltary History site does not include any copyright notices on their site either, so since the publications they use also don't have a copyright, it seems perfectly fair to assume that there aren't any. I have though seen many 'books' published on-line that still prominently display the copyright notice within the book, which these (specifically this one), does not. Anyway, with the rewrite, it's all a moot point anyhow. I think it may still need some work, but if there was any doubt about it, this should at least be enough to clear it up for now. Thanks for the concern though. I wouldn't want most 'modern era' US military war articles on here to be stripped of their content due to people citing sources from the same site.

BTW, usually copyright notice say something along the lines of "may not be reproduced in whole or in part", so I think that merely surrounding something with quotes would still be considered a copyright violation, if the work was in fact copyrighted. wbfergus ^Talk 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite, and yes, you definitely cannot reproduce large parts of works--probably more than a couple of paragraphs, I don't know the exact limit--even if you quote them. My only point with the quotes was that if you are quoting someone directly, you do need to use quotation marks. This is true regardless of whether or not something is copyrighted. So if, in your slimmed down version, there are passages which are word for word identical with the original texts, you do need to use quotation marks. Again, this applies irrespective of copyright (for example quoting something said at a conference, or a journalist quoting a source--situations where copyright does not come into play).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fergus's trimming was actually pretty meager. His six paragraph contribution is now at 723 words (employing a word processor for counting). After investigating the originating source, by my counts 458 of those 723 words are still copied verbatim; and as Bigtime justly points out, there are no quotation marks to indicate that the material is a verbatim source extraction from an external source. If a practice of copying public army scholarship and pasting it in wikipedia articles catches on it would have serious implications for the wikipedia project as we know it. As for the quote that I added from Cumings, there was no copyvio involved in such an action. It was adequately sourced and framed with quotation marks. It was also not exceptionally long. Nevertheless I am all for copyediting it accurately for the purposes of concision, better yet I am for reviewing the position of Cumings on the nuclear issues. The quote that was originally submitted was not my selection, it was that of an anonymous user. It may not be a definitive or sufficiently comprehensive statement of his position. I agree with Bigtime that the sources that Fergus used are dated. I also share the skepticism of Bigtime concerning excessive reliance on army scholarship, especially while pretending that it is stating all of the relevant facts and interpreting the set of facts correctly. For this section (and perhaps for other section too) historians employed by the army seem to have been afforded undue weight.

Regarding the datedness of the source it is interesting to note the following tidbits from "The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research" by Brune and Higham, which is the first book listed in the reference section, what follows are some highlights, which for clarity I have separated into numbered paragraphs: (all quotes are from: The Korean War Handbook of the Literature and Research, ed. Lester H. Brune and Robin Higham (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996, p.298-302)

1) "In the MacArthur hearings, the Truman administration went to great lengths to argue that the United States did not have conventional strength in the air or adequate atomic stockpile to undertake such an offensive. Recent scholarship, based on the now-declassified records of U.S. military planning, paints a different picture and shifts the terms of reference for the Truman administration's consideration of potential use of the atomic option. The idea that Truman was absolutely unwilling to break what Eisenhower called the "gentleman's agreement" to limit the fighting to Korea and not to use atomic weapons has lately come under some doubt."

2) "One of the most extensive examinations of Truman's use of atomic policy is Roger Dingman's "Atomic Diplomacy during the Korea War" ( 1988- 1989)...Dingman discerns a clear pattern that he believes holds true for the entire Korean War: that "atomic diplomacy was an element of American statecraft throughout the conflict." Dingman states that there were four periods when the Truman administration considered the use of atomic weapons: twice in the early war days of July 1950, in November 1950 just after the massive Chinese intervention in the war, and finally in April 1951. He maintains that while neither Truman nor Eisenhower actually came close to deploying the bomb, Truman came closest in April 1951."

3) "Recent military histories of the war have collaborated and even anticipated Dingman's thesis. Callum A. MacDonald, Korea: The War before Vietnam (1986), and Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday, Korea: the Unknown War (1988), both cite a trial run for use of nuclear weapons in Korea, codenamed Operation Hudson Harbor, in which U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers overflew and dropped dummy or conventional weapons on North Korea as a training exercise for an atomic attack and a means of signaling U.S. resolve at the then-recessed armistice talks. Cumings and Halliday see Truman's public rattling of the atomic bomb in November 1950 not as a faux pas but as a "carefully weighed threat based on atomic contingency planning to use the bomb." British military historian and journalist Max Hastings , The Korean War (1987), summarizes the new view of the Truman administration's policy toward atomic weapons in Korea. Posing the question of how close Truman came to using atomic weapons against China, he responds: "much closer, the answer must be, than the allies cared to believe at the time." Hastings suggests that "if Truman and his fellow members recoiled from bearing responsibility for so terrible an act, America's leading military men, from the Joint Chiefs downward, were far more equivocal and seemed less disturbed by the prospect.""

4)"In Danger and Survival. Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (1988), McGeorge Bundy asks us not to forget that while Truman allowed contingency planning for atomic war and authorized the development of new and more effective weapons, he was determined never to use them. Bundy bases his conclusions on Truman's state of mind as given in part in the private musings of the president, which are collected in Robert H. Ferrell (ed.), Off The Record ( 1980). The problem is that Truman's most definitive private statement that he would not use atomic weapons was on April 24, 1954, after the end of the war and when he was a former president with ample time for reflection. His diary entry of May 1952, during the war and when he was commander in chief, is far more belligerent. He suggests that the negotiators ask their communist counterparts at Panmunjom whether they want an end to the war or "China and Siberia destroyed." While considerable evidence shows that Truman was personally frustrated by his inability to use atomic weapons, the question remains: Is there any reason to believe that this frustration could ever overcome Truman's determination not to use atomic or conventional weapons against China?"

The authors conclude this section of the book with the following:..."If a new synthesis is emerging on Truman and atomic war, it holds that Truman was prepared to use atomic contingency planning, deployment of actual weapons near the battlefield, public statements, and even trial nonnuclear bombing runs to influence his opponents in Korea and to quiet his critics in the United States. Because of some very clear limitations, he was not prepared to use atomic weapons again except under the most dire circumstances."

Finally I propose that the current section is best described as a mess and should be removed to talk for more work. The most important scholarly perspectives and issues should identified and described in talk first, and then a way should be found to formulate a consensus that covers the most important issues and gives due weight to the notable perspectives. Currently, I think this article suffers from an attempt to obfuscate the many complexities involved with understanding the war, preferring to shove one monolithic,dated, US-centric party line down readers throats. An example is Fergus's systematic attempts to delete all mentions of civil war in the article. The nature of the war, and what weights to give internal and external factors and the relations between them are genuine bones of contention in the scholarly literature. The article should make a serious attempt to reflect such complexity.BernardL 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is pretty unreadable as it is, because it moves from BernardL's material to wbfergus's and pretty much reads like two people arguing one after the other with no transition (and in fact that's what it is). I would support pulling the whole thing for the time being and developing it here in a new talk page section.

Good finds Bernard, obviously there are better sources available, and my inclination would be to scrap the whole section and start from scratch with better articles and books. I snagged the Roger Dingman article you mentioned from JSTOR (it was published in International Security in 1988) and it looks very good, certainly better than the army book and even the Cumings book. I might try to look through some of it and post some ideas here, and I could also pass the article along to anyone who is interested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Casulties propaganda from communnist side

The author does not cite any reports. Gives a vague disclainer about conflicting numbers form various scholarly journals (alas none are mentioned0. Then the author goes on to cite some purported figures by a communist regime.

Bad history, bad communist propaganda piece

"The Korean War finally ended in July 1953. Left in its wake were four million military and civilian casualties, including 33,600 American, 16,000 UN allied, 415,000 South Korean, and 520,000 North Korean dead. There were also an estimated 900,000 Chinese casualties. Half of Korea's industry was destroyed and a third of all homes" source http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html

Apparently one third of the Peoples Republic of China's army was wiped out and or disabled in Korea.

America's air superiority led to enormous chinese casulties in what a commanding general called a meat grinder. China would send its human wave , Nato forces would withdraw and then the chinese troops would be annihiliated by bommbing. The US airforce called this the meat griner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With what are you finding fault, exactly? Be a little more specific, and we can address your concerns. As for China's army, in 1950, the PLA was 5 million strong, with an additional 5.5 million-man militia. 900k is hardly 1/3 of even the regular army, let alone total forces. Parsecboy 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy Its a history article not a propaganda piece for some trotskyite magazine as for your imagined communist troop strength cite your sources, 80 % of Chinese PLA was in Nkorea , 2.7 million /3 =900,000 hardly a success story for your communists. The NYTimes in various articles of the period cited the ten of thousands of POW defectors MacGregor NYTIMES NOV 16, 1953. Also some American casualities were due to the cowardly execution of of out unarmed men by the communists. Robert Alden NYTIMES 8-30-195 If this is your article it's something out of the ministry of truth from George Orwells 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, cite specific concerns instead of vague statements. If there are specific lines of text you feel to be erroneous, present them here. You could also place {{fact}} templates in the article directly. The PLA was only around 2.8 million by 1953. In 1950, it was over 5 million. Read the History of the People's Liberation Army article. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Parsecboy 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Id pay no futher attention to this biased annonimous user, my advice, theres always Conservapedia!, a place where youll feel right at home.200.83.57.71 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Finaly over

someone needs to add the new treaty sighned by both North and South Korea stating the war is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.176.65 (talk • contribs)

There was no treaty signed ending the war; North and South signed an agreement calling for negotiations that would result in a treaty to end the war. There's a big difference. Parsecboy 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

still nice to have the future of one. might as well add the peace treaty, doesnt look like its fading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Could someone please fix the section on nuclear weapon threats? I saw quite a few weasel words, and the main focus of the paragraph is that Truman accidentally threatened using nukes. Crisco 1492 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read above, in the "Nuclear weapons section", you'll see they're very much engaged in attempting to fix the problems with that section of the article. Parsecboy 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I just noticed that after posting my comment. Crisco 1492 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I don't think that we should approach this article for long, even for a rewrite (this is response for Wberfugus' request) until we have ton of more editors interested in Korea-related topics. It's my opinion that about 1/10 editors signed up for WikiProject Korea are sock puppets & about 8/10 editors have lost interest in Wikipedia. And then the remaining 1/10 can't do anything - most of the work groups are inactive except for maybe food & even that is done by ppl not in the cuisine work group. Currently, I'm trying to push Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) to become a featured article, but user:Good friend100 seems to dislike my edits & he doesn't reply to my suggestions so I'm not quite sure what I want to do. I could begin contributing to this article, but I don't want to invest my time if it'd become a waste (as were several of my experiences in contributing). (Wikimachine 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

I'll help you with that.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. Now that there is a new fiscal year, my focus needs to shift back to real life again. I have a bunch of work to get done now that I have another set of billable hours to charge against, so I won't be able to spend as much time on here as I was for at least a few more months. Also, I finally found my copy of Singlaub's "Hazardous Duty" yesterday and took a quick glance through it, and there's a things I'd like to add from it, primarily how the CIA knew abouth the NK buildup prior to the invasion, but MacArthur and therefore Army Intelligence, discredited the information as unreliable, etc. I don't think there is anything currently in the article about that, so if you run across place for it, let me know. Or, I could include the relevant parts here, and you can then re-edit appropriately for the article. Either way. wbfergus ^Talk 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dead Body of A Chinese Man, Bloody

I am very uncomfortable about the bloody picture of the dead Chinese man. A soldier is human first, then he is a Chinese man, then he was a soldier. The bloody picture shows his face clearly, with his chopped legs.

He should be not responsible for the justice of the war, regardless who was right and who was wrong. It is a shame that recently Inter-Korean Summit already formally ended their war in Oct 2007, by visiting each other and this bloody picture is still shown here in this article.

The picture is real, but real things like adult contents and violent scene are still not good for all of us, especially for Children who are reading this article. I have seen more bloody move such as the Pathfinder (2007 film), in which the indigenous people in North America were bloodily killed by Vikings, but that is an 18+ movie. I am not a child and I still feel upset, not only because I am a Chinese, more important I am trying to be keep my dignity as a human.

As a considerate member of Wikepedia, I would suggest to delete this bloody picture. I am aware of the fact that the sever of Wikipedia is in US, not in UN, nor in China. But we are all humans; I did not see a bloody body with clear face from US soldier in this article (I am sure someone died and the pictures are available). Unless if there is a USA dead body added to this article, I strongly suggest to delete this picture, for the dignity of a dead person, although we don’t even know his name.Dongwenliang 04:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this picture, which turne out keep. WP:CENSORED applies, sorry.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And acually, His legs are not chopped.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is the clear face with a bloody dead body. It is seems to me injuries can be found around his mouth. Can you tell me where is the old disccusion?Dongwenliang 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Look in the archived discussion about Chinese casualties. War is not pretty, and people actually die. There is also a picture of a dead American in the article, along with a picture of hundreds of dead South Koreans. wbfergus ^Talk 10:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows war is not pretty, except the one who inserted this image in this article. Above I mentioned that it is a real picture, the authenticity of the picture is not the reason the picture should stay. Violence, rape, murder happens everyday somewhere on our earth, those are also not pretty but true, can that be the reason this picture should stay?

Violence can be taught. That is why we should hide these explicit atrocity pictures and sex explicit pictures from Children, even from all the person who are with dignity. I noticed the picture of US soldier, his face is down and his identity is not shown, without the word beneath, you can not even tell if he is an US soldier or not. Similar picture should be used to replace the Chinese picture. I hate to say this but it seems that in your eyes we are not human. Dongwenliang 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Find a better picture, and will be considered for possible replacement. As it is, please refer to a post above regarding censorship. wbfergus ^Talk 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that Wikipedia is not censored, for any reason. The picture adds content to the article, and for that reason, it should remain here. Likewise, Wikipedia is not about "We have one picture of a dead Chinese soldier, so we have to have a picture of a dead American to even it out". If there is a usable picture, it should be added to a relevant article, provided the article isn't already too full of images in the first place. Parsecboy 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored: there are two most important meanings for it. Firstly it is for scientific reasons, for example, the picture of a genital could be shown for the purpose of the article talking about sex organs (Anyway this does not fall into porn). Secondly, every reader can edit or upload a picture without getting approval in advance, and the administrators cannot instantly delete the inappropriate pictures or contents. That is the way why Wikipedia is not censored.

So it does not mean you can post any porn or bloody pictures like this one. It is also so offensive and I am really very upset, especially the face of the soldier is clearly shown.

The most important spirit of Wikipedia, is the neutral point view. I do not understand a picture of high resolution of a bloody dead Chinese man with clear face identity, compare with a picture of back of an US soldier, comply with the neutral point view of this article. I wish you can understand and respect others. Dongwenliang 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is non neutral about this image? How is it "biased" to show a dead Chinese soldier on his back, and a dead American on his front? A dead soldier is a dead soldier. If you want to find a picture of a dead American lying on his back, go right ahead. As to your interpretation of WP:CENSOR, perhaps you should read the first line.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.

Take note that no one is complaining about the picture of the dead American. Parsecboy 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course no complain. If the Chinese soldier' face is not shown, why would I bother to complain? People complain because they feel unfair. The bias is, the dead American soldier is shown with dignity and the Chinese soldier is not, the fact is not that complicated at all. Dongwenliang 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Then go find a picture of a dead American lying on his back. In my, and the majority of other editors here who have discussed this issue before, a corpse is a corpse is a corpse. This is also not complicated. Parsecboy 23:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the dignity stuffs. Who cares? (Wikimachine 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

At least I care. I am not going to find a bloody picture of USA soldier lying on his back. Lying on the back or not, is not the problem. The problme is his clear face. I will also not try to find an US soldier with a clear face. Because I respect everyone, regardless race and color. However I may find a better picture to replace the Chinese picture without his clear face and identity being shown. Do you know why dead people are always shown with covered body or face? I wish he can die with dignity, even after more than 50 years Dongwenliang 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone who died in combat died with dignity. If you can find more pictures of Chinese soldiers, I encourage you to do so. China is seriously under-represented in this article. Parsecboy 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the positions of the bodies are relevant, and acceptable. The position of the American body shows the manner in which he was killed ie. bound and executed - and the body of the Chinese dude that shows his face puts a human and personal touch to the whole article. Dignity is important, however to remove all controversial images from Wikipedia in order to preserve dignity is not what Wikipedia is about. Besides in the views of some, dying while fighting for your country is very dignified.Sennen goroshi 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked from editing yesterday, because of open proxy(?). It is true that it is hard to die in dignity in Korea War, for both Chinese and US soldiers, I never denied that. The problem is the editor shown them with bias, one with clear identity and one is not. This is unfair.Dongwenliang 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. In the previous discussions on this image, the majority of the editors (presumably mostly white males in their 20s) claimed that the image is neutral and decline to change it, on the ground that it is a Wikipedia featured image, which was almost certainly voted again by the same demographic group of people. Despite all these, they actually believe this should be a "featured" article. What an irony. It is an even bigger irony that they claim "communism reeducation" is a crime against POW. In other words, the preaching of the creed of a dead white man to the communist POWs is the real salvation. And, look at the amazing results of the powerful American Air force, their big bombs can break the legs of your poor Chinese solider. And, look at the crimes committed by the Chinese, they even killed an American POW. Oh, by the way, the US Army is not only mighty, it is also really a big family, because the black and white American solders were fighting side by side in the advertisement on this site.

And besides, the people from mainland China have been brain-washed, they cannot even think independently, so their opinions are highly biased. Only the people in the western world, (oh I am sorry, I should say the free world), can think objectively and neutrally, even though they have been taught by their media 24/7 that the communist China is evil. Information from the communist governments are simply propaganda. Only the documents provided by the US government, (including the Bush administration, I guess), are the facts. Guess whose brain-wash is more successful?

Oh, yes. Welcome to the Wikipedia.

Yours truly, (Postdoc 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Let's assume a little good faith here. I for one had nothing to do with the image in question's promotion to featured image status. Kfc1864 is a Korean living in Soeul. Wikimachine is also Korean. Wbfergus served in the US Army, stationed at the JSA in the mid-late '70s. I'm the only "white male in his 20s". As for the rest of your rant, what is your point? Take your anti-American vitriol somewhere else. Oh, and sign your posts. Four tildes (~~~~). Parsecboy 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the neutrality of the images is fine, if you read about the Korean war it's pretty obvious that there was a high human death toll compared to other conflicts of a similar length (almost as many or similar to Vietnam war), to show some human bodies isn't offensive, consider American civil war photography, it became famous in its own right. Atomsgive 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

assume a little good faith is a two way job. Before you asking others why they did not assume a little good faith toward you, check if your point is really neutral first. I really don’t understand why it is so difficult to put your feet in others shoes. There are so many people they can only, and always think in one way. That is why selfish, greed, intolerances, hatred and war are flourishing everywhere. Dongwenliang 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How was I failing to AGF? By stating that only one editor involved here actually is in the demographic that supposedly voted to promote the image to featured status (and that I was in no way involved in said promotion)? For calling what Postdoc stated above an anti-American rant? It's a dead soldier. He's dead. He doesn't care about this alleged affront to his dignity. Get over it. Parsecboy 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The ones who voted a bloody picture as a “featured” image, did not assume good faith in the first place, they have no faith in world peace, in all human beings, in our children even in himself at all. I am telling you death threatening will never work, especially to civilized people. The only thing works is love. An image like this has no effects of threatening anybody at all, it promote hatred really well instead. By supporting to show a Chinese dead soldier clearly with his face identity (one can tell he is Asian, one can tell his name if he knows him) while only show an US soldier with his back (we don’t even know if he was a Caucasian or not), where is your neutral point of view and good faith? Your point reminds me of some most absurd view points, such as “In the name of God, we kill”, or “I despise two kind of person, one is racist, another is black”, these all claim they strongly believe in God and thus consider themselves have a good faith. This is totally ridiculous Dongwenliang 21:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point, even if the image wasn't on wikipedia, it has been widely published before so removing it here would be pointless since this dead Chinese soldier has received as much publicity as he is going to receive over the past 50+ years. The media will still publish war causality images, remember the footage of the S Vietnamese policeman executing a vietcong - in fact censoring war causality images is helps sanitize wars, that's why the Bush administration banned photos of even flag covered caskets of dead American military personnel (in past wars they were considered patriotic images...)

if anything the Chinese soldier is portrayed in better than the dead American in the article, because the Chinese soldier died in combat whereas the US soldier was apparently the victim of a war crime, and I don't think the race of the soldiers in question really matters. Atomsgive 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What you said is Exactly right. I fully agree and realized the photo could be on the other websites, maybe an US National Defense site, CIA site or even CNN. But do these website or media claim they are promoting the neutrality of viewpoints? Do they claim they are promoting "Assume Good Faith" like Wikipedia does? There are also plenty photos of porn and violence on other websites, likewise, these sites of course are not censored too. Shall this be the reason Wikipedia should also publish porn and violent photos? Dongwenliang 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Get over it. If you don't like it, either don't read the article or find a suitable replacement. The picture has occasionally been the subject of one person 'outrage' numerous times, and the picture is still here. Consensus seems to be to keep it, as whenever somebody deleted it, it was reverted back. Just like porn sites, if you don't like what you see there, don't go there. It's really kind of simple. And, as stated above, the dead Chinese soldier is actually portrayed better than the dead American soldier. Per Chinese and Japanese cultures, dying in combat is considered much more honorable than surrender or capture, hence the Chinese soldier would be regarded in those cultures as being a more honorable death than the American soldier who was captured and subsequently executed. So, if that person has any relatives or friends who can identify him, then they would at least know he died honorably. This merely shows that he did not die a dishonorable death or disgrace his family. wbfergus ^Talk 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I had enough discussion too and I removed both pictures until I find one for replacement. “The picture has occasionally been the subject of one person 'outrage' numerous times ” right indicates that this is unaceptable and inappropirate. It is glad to know this topic had been discussed many times so we all knew the prolem. If the dead body with clear identification is an honor in Japan or Korea, upload a dead Korean body with clear face. Why we should all follow Japan and Korea’s culture while the dead soldier was not Japanese nor Korean? Where is your logic? Some tribes in the Amozon forest are cannibals, should we all follow them and eat each other??Dongwenliang 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I had enough as well and reverted your edits made without consensus. Case closed. wbfergus ^Talk 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What a hypocrisy. Based on the 30 most recent unique users that have made changes to the article, only "Dongweliang" give consideration to the other side of the war. Yet, his opinion is rejected because of "no consensus". Why does this remind me of the all-white jury in the Jena6 case? Anyone else? If something is insulating, only the victims can explain. Not the other way around. If people agree that wikipedia is just as good a porn site, then who cares? And by the way, many these users are from the US and are still going to schools. Postdoc 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Postdoc for your support. And we all know the golden rule of Avoid “conflict of interests”. Although this rule may not be adopted by Wikipedia yet, but for the reason of “Assume Good Faith”, The Korea War happened between so called UN (US Army was the major force) and Communism Korea (Chinese Army was the major force). We all knew in the courthouse, if someone who is both a plaintiff (or defendant) and a relative of the judge, can we expect from the judge for a fair result? So when this image was featured, or when we discuss the removing from article, the users from US army or South Korea Army should not participate. This case, is obviously a “conflict of interests” Parsecboy is an user from US military. I can fully understand that he has lots of reasons to be pround being in the US Army and protecting his people. (He should not be pround of invading other countres though). But by opposing remove this bloody image, which was a conflict between US Army and China, his viewspoints should be considered did not avoiding the “Confict of interests.” Dongwenliang 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And, I am Chinese and I never know we have a culture of being pride to show dead body with identity. That is not my culture. I think no culture in the world likes that, the baseline is, we are all humans.Dongwenliang 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how my being in the US Army is any more a conflict of interest than you being Chinese. What vested interest do I have in keeping the image of a dead Chinese soldier on this page? What do I get out of it? You should stop making bad faith assertions about other editors. So much for all of your "golden rule" talk. Parsecboy 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said the Chinese (or any culture) takes "pride to show dead body with identity"? Quit having a tizzy and re-read what has been stated before. wbfergus ^Talk 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I am Chinese and I am not from PLA. You are an American and from US Force. Do you know what are the differences between civilians and military?

What my job is makes no difference. I am an American, who tends to see from the American perspective, you are a Chinese, who tends to see from the Chinese perspective, nothing more. Stop accusing me of bad faith. Parsecboy 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

webfergus, did you change your comments about culture from Korea and Japan to China and Japan? The first time I saw it was the former. I found it is hard to discuss with you if you are dishonest and changed your discussions after I replied them. I never commented Korea and Japan culture since I think I have less understanding of Japan and Korea culture than Japanese and Korean, I wander how you could know Chinese culture better than myself. And please don't forget, showing a dead body with clear identity, is right what we are talking about here.Dongwenliang 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history of this page. I did not change it. So, once again you are mistaken. Why don't you go find another article to be a disruptive editor on? If you don't like this article, don't read it. You are obviously not interested in making this article better, you are only disrupting it. wbfergus ^Talk 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why insulting all the Chinese is better for this article, and why removing the insulting image is disruptive. Anyway we Chinese should know our culture better than you, that is my point. And how could I know if I like it or not before I read it?Dongwenliang 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How is showing a picture of a dead Chinese soldier insulting all Chinese people? I think you're overreacting. John Smith's 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You may show a dead man without problem, but show a dead man with clear face identity, is a threatenning and an insulting. I discussed this clearly on the previous paragraph. I am not sure why there are so many China haters. Anyway, only the people feel offensive could tell. And it is not only myself, doesn't the countless discussions in achieves indicate you something? Not so many Chinese visit this site all object it, many of us may not speak English, you can image how we will react if the people in China are out of intenet blocking.Dongwenliang 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And how could I know if I like it or not before I read it? How would you know if you liked a porn site (or any web site) until after you visited it? What would you do if you didn't like it? Would you keep going back, or would you not go there again? wbfergus ^Talk 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You always compare Wikipedia with a porn site. How Wekipedia is comparable with porn site?? Wiki is not a porn site. Dongwenliang 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking through this discussion, it looks to me that you were the first person to bring up the porn site analogy, so everybody has just been following your lead, probably under the assumption that there is probably at least one porn site out there would each of us could probably find offensive in our own way. It then becomes dependent on us to decide if we'd visit that site again. wbfergus ^Talk 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't visit porn site very often but I never found any images on porn sites are offensive. I don't think any porn sites targets a certain group of people in a negtive way like this war image here does. Dongwenliang 20:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think images on porn sites should be censored at all? What about a woman who feels degraded and offended by them? Does she have a right to remove those images, such that you or anyone else who is not offended, cannot see them? Parsecboy 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No I think the censoreship of a porn site, the victim should not be an individual adult, for example, you must be at lease 18 to review those sites, that is how and why the porn sites are censored. Adult only, that is it, and most important, they are a group of people below the age of 18. We can exlclude the porn pictures from Children, you may exclude this bloody image with clear face from all Chinese too. Dongwenliang 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you must not have any teenagers or know very little about computers. I have a teenager and my current profession is in computers. It is impossible to block all porn sites, even most of them, from somebody, even those who don't want to visit them. There are many out there that skirt the things blocking software looks for, mainly keywords. And for those who are actively seeking those pictures, there's so way to stop it. My son can easily connect to a porn site an simply click a button to say he is 18. That does not prevent him from viewing those pictures. So, since you said you find nothing offensive about porn sites, I guess that means that you find nothing offensive about gay porn sites, bestiality porn sites, porn sites specializing in human excrement (urine and feces), porn sites with midgets or with people with disabilities, porn sites dedicated to violent sex (rape, torture, etc.) and so on, and if you visited one accidentally, you would continue to revisit it. Those are all porn sites; it is not restricted soley to male-female sex. Your argument does not stand up, and surely there must be something in the porn world that you would find offensive, and if you ever accidentally visited, would never visit again. That is the point.

There are many sites devoted to something, but they may still have something on them that some would consider offensive. Say I visited a web site about "Entertainment". From there I could probably find something related to Britney Spears, be offended, and then decide on my own never to visit that site again. Many other people however would not be offended by that, and continue revisting the site. There is no reason the site should take my objection (and maybe a couple other people) and decide to never carry anything related to Britney Spears again, when there are so many other people who didn't find it offensive. Even staying soley within the realm of Wikipedia, there is a lot of material here that many people from various backgrounds find offensive. I'm positive there is much content on here that strict Muslims would find offensive. I know there is much content on here on Scientologists find offensive. The examples go on and on. Just because somebody finds something offensive, does not mean it should be deleted, unless it does not meet Wikipedia standards, violates laws (like copyright), or generates such widespread disapproval from the entire Wikipedia community to warrant such removal. I'm sorry, but you, Postdoc, and Ksyrie alone do not represent the entire Wikipedia community. There is also no policy that this article has to match whatever is contained in a different language's Wikipedia. I imagine there is a Chinese version that does not include the picture, and the article content is quite different from what is included here. wbfergus ^Talk 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sites and films you are talking about, has an warning, such as adult only, 18+ only, etc. If you can add a warning such as "This article/picture is offensive to Chinese people, please click leave botton if you don't want read it". Both you and Parsecboy always said "if you don't like it, don't see it". The problem is, how would I know I will be offended without reading it or without a warning sign? I am sure I will not read it if I saw a warning like above mentioned. Even I did, I would not make a complain. Dongwenliang 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Parsecboy 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

People here are not taking this to a racist level. Nobody here has any anti-Chinese sentiment here, and if they do, they shouldn't be here. Just add an image of a dead american soldier on the page. And, assume good faith on your part. People don't add an image of a dead chinese solider to insult Chinese soldiers. Its just part of the article. Good friend100 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you read all the discussions above or not. There is already a dead US soldier in the article. I said so many times that it is not the dead soldier, it is the way the editor select/show the bloody picture with clear identity. If you assume good faith in the first place, you should consider the opinion from some Chinese editors since the dead one with clear face is a Chinese. Who is supposed to decide if it is an insult or not? Who supposed to consider taking this into a racist level or not? If you read the achieves, this issue had been brought up so many times, you may need to understand why so many people are “overreact” so frequently. Thanks for your discussion. Dongwenliang 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The anti-China and anti-North Korean tone is quite obvious in this article, due to the editing community of this article (mainly from the US and partly from South Korea). The point is that some people claim that they want to remove this kind of "systematic bias" from this article, while in reality these "assertive" people refuse to budge from their "original" positions. "Dongwenliang"'s arguments are met with such "good faithed" words like "Who cares?", "Get over it", "Over-react", "disruptive", "case closed", etc. In fact, looking through the editing histories of some users here, their attitudes to mainland China and North Korea are quite obvious. Yes, statistics really speak for themselves. Claiming neutral is one thing, doing it is another thing. Isn't it? Postdoc 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dongwenliang, and anyone else who objects to images of war dead do need to get over it. Wikipedia quite clearly states that it is NOT censored, for any reason, in any way. If something strikes you as offensive, stop looking at it. No one is forcing you to stay here and stare at an image that you find objectionable. It's not anti-China or anti-North Korea; it's anti-censorship. I'm sure plenty of Muslims are upset that this image is on Wikipedia, however, it remains on several pages. The point is, you cannot force your opinions on other people, no matter how seemingly justified you think you are. Parsecboy 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I think you should go away, please read this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Dongwenliang 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read that article first. The article deals with things such as self-promotion, writing your own autobiography, writing about close friends or clients, or if you work for a company, and you're trying to improve its image. Not "You've been in the US Army, so you're not allowed to discuss articles related to it." Parsecboy 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want Parsecboy to go awy due to conflict of interest, then you should also for the same reasons. You're Chinese, so you have a conflict of interest about anything Chinese. Simple? wbfergus ^Talk 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not simple. You said that just to prove a point in getting rid of Chinese users from discussing on this topic since they are probably the only one who is offended by this topic and willing to argue. Chinese users are the ones who defend the dignity of the dead solider since usually no one else from another race bothers to care for that kind of stuff, those who oppose the removal of such picture are apparently Americans or are citizens of countries who fought on the opposing side of the the Chinese during the Korean war (I can hardly think of anyone else who would oppose something that's totally not related to them or their nationality) So, all users from countries who fought against china in the Korean war should be blocked from editing. I think that would be a stalemate because almost all of us would be blocked.

"And besides, the people from mainland China have been brain-washed, they cannot even think independently, so their opinions are highly biased. Only the people in the western world, (oh I am sorry, I should say the free world), can think objectively and neutrally, even though they have been taught by their media 24/7 that the communist China is evil. Information from the communist governments are simply propaganda. Only the documents provided by the US government, (including the Bush administration, I guess), are the facts. Guess whose brain-wash is more successful?" That's quite a bold assumption you're making there, don't go off-topic and drag more question into this debate. And oh yes, i would counter your point right now but since this has to be a valid post I'm not going to do that.

Back to the topic, "If something strikes you as offensive, stop looking at it" that doesn't mean you would allow someone to make an offensive comment about you out in the public, while you are not there to listen to it. Some might not be offended by such comment, but some are. It's not about my personal opinion, rather, it's about the effect on others Chinese who just happened to stumble upon this image. It's hard to explain, and it's not because in comparison of this image to the dead American solider, i don't want to add another bloody image so another soldier's dignity can be trampled upon, i guess i got angry at this picture because it really tainted the Chinese image. I'm willing to argue because i feel the pain of my fellow Chinese who had fallen in the war, kinda like everyone shares a same national image, and shares the same pride and honor in life due to the fact they are more related together. If you showed a bloody picture of a Chinese soldier then all other Chinese would defend his image despite if he's alive or not. There, I've expressed my point, although i seriously doubt this will do any good since if we had a vote about whether to keep the image or not, i am more than 99% sure it will be kept as it is.

Famous message

"Following Colonel Harrison Thyng’s famous message to the Pentagon, the 51st FIW reinforced the beleaguered 4th in December 1951" - as a UK citizen I have no idea what this famous message might be. Could this be rewritten to be clear to a wider audience? Tim Vickers 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to all editors

Please stop edit warring. I just checked the edit history and theres a long string of edit warring. WP:3RR will remain in effect and if you keep this up, somebody will have to file a report. Good friend100 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As a first (and required) step in getting Administrator sanctions, if the edit warring continues, below is an official RfC. wbfergus ^Talk 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh good! I keep forgetting about these simple resolutions. Seems to be getting a problem for me since I keep eyeing the banhammer. Poor, poor, AGF. Good friend100 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It took a bit of looking around. At first I was going to do a RfM, but it said this was needed first. wbfergus ^Talk 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

The total numbers of casualties suffered by all parties involved may never be known. In Western countries, the numbers have been subjected to numerous scholarly reviews, and in the case of one U.S. estimate, the number was revised after a clerical error was discovered. Each country's self-reported casualties were largely based upon troop movements, unit rosters, battle casualty reports, and medical records.

The Western numbers of Chinese and/or North Korean casulties are based primarily on battle reports of estimated casualties, interrogation of POWs and captured documents. The Chinese estimation of UN casualties states "The after-war joint declaration of the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Korean People's Army claimed that they 'eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries.' The vague 'eliminated' number gave no details to that of dead, wounded and captured." Regarding their own casualties, the same source said "During the wartime, 70 percent of the forces of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) were dispatched to Korea as the Chinese People's Volunteers (accumulated to 2.97 million), along with more than 600,000 civil workers. The Chinese People's Volunteers suffered 148,000 deaths altogether, among which 114,000 died in combats, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized, 13,000 died from diseases; and 380,000 were wounded. There were also 29,000 missing, including 21,400 POWs, of whom 14,000 were sent to Taiwan, 7,110 were repatriated." This same source concluded with these numbers for North Korean casualties, "The Korean People's Army had 290,000 casualties and 90,000 POWs. There was a large number of civilian deaths in the northern part of Korea, but no accurate figures were available."[44]

The casulties of the various UN forces are listed in the infobox, along with their estimates of Chinese and North Korean forces."

That entire section is very poor and includes multiple misspelled words, among other errors. Where is the "390,000 eliminated" from the U.S. coming from? What source do they have other than North Korea (reputable source right?). All Western historians agree that the American casualties in the Korean war were no more than 40,000.

Here's a link: http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html

The entire Korean War section on casualties (see how I spelled it correctly?) needs to be rewritten by someone that isn't a North Korean propagandist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.101.142 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote that section, and I am far from being a NK propagandist. Most of the typos (in case I did misspell something), are probably within quotes, which mean that they were copied verbatim from the official transcript of a statement from the Chinese embassy in New York. The section should be referenced, with a link to the web site that contains the official statement.

After much arguing with one certain individual who insisted those numbers were far more accurate than the American numbers, consensus was finally reached to include that section within the article (but NOT in the infobox), so that the Chinese estimation could be seen by all. This way, what most people feel are the most accurate numbers appear in the infobox, but the reader can guage for themselves as they read the article what another source thinks the numbers are.

So, with this brief history of the section out of the way, please re-read the section again. If you can see a better way to rewrite it, feel free, but remember information must be sourced, and what is within quotes needs to remain as the original source states it. wbfergus ^Talk 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope some professions would write this article. In this casualities section, there are several numbers hard to believe or inconsistent. the US has ~36K dead in the whole war (about ~26K died in battles). However, in the section of first Chinese-US battle, it claims 15000 casualities on one army. this number should count to the 26K, i guess. That means, for the rest of the war, only about 10,000 more US troops died. This is just beyond my understanding. Also, according to the history of the articles, this ~36K is coming from a previous error that count the death in the other area at the same period of time. the miscounted number is about ~17K. I am not sure if this ~17K was the total of death in other area at the same time or not. I assume it is. As far as I know, there were no other war US involved during this time. So that means, the US troops death toll in the peaceful zone is almost half of the hot war zone like Korea at that time. This really shocks me b/c the majority of the troops are young and fit. US military is such dangeous job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.135.235.188 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that casualties include deaths, injuries, PoWs, MIA, and others. Total US casualties were over 150,000. The 36k is actually the revised number, the original was closer to 45k, if memory serves me. And yes, any military is a very dangerous job; soldiers die in training and other accidents all the time. Parsecboy 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some casualties happen when crush landing using a parachute.Dongwenliang 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't I know that; I've got a compression fracture in my T12 from a bad landing. Parsecboy 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I found that in your page before I commented above, I wish you already completely recoverd now.Dongwenliang 15:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about as healed as I can be, which isn't back to how I was, but oh well. At least it's getting me out of a 2nd deployment to Iraq :) Parsecboy 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

US estimated numbers

The total death in the US estimates of Chinese is over 400,000. The total wounded is 486,000. So if you add them together, it is 886,000+. This number even larger than the total Chinese strength of 780,000 which is all agreed. We now can see how absurd these US estimations are. Nobody returned home? Even so it should be right 780,000. Dongwenliang 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts. The estimates presented are for both Chinese and North Korean casualties. wbfergus ^Talk 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, read the infobox completely. The 780,000 was the peak strength, not the overall number of soldiers involved, which numbered over 2 million for the Chinese PVA. Parsecboy 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, a soldier who has been wounded multiple times badly enough to be removed from action before being sent back into the fighting can be counted as multiple casualites. I believe that the ANZAC forces wracked up a casualty rate greater than 100 percent in the Gallipoli campaign in this way. --Jfruh (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only see the 780,000 is under "Strength". You probably need to add a note to make your points logic. Or change it to "Peak Strength". Dongwenliang 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the section of the box carefully; it already explains it.Parsecboy 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese offical number of death is about 140,000. I found another source that shown break-down number from each provinces of PVA. Here: [4]. Beijing:1483, Fujian:982, Tianjin:977, Henan:10673, Hebei: 10155, Hubei:5167, Shanxi:5835, Hunan:10687, Inner Mongolia: 1683, Guangdong:3186, Liaoning:13374, Guangxi:2915, Jilin:18260, Shan'xi:2802, Heilongjiang:8222, Ningxia:461, Shandong: 19685, Gansu: 1041, Shanghai:1634, Qnghai:48, Jiangsu:7268, Xinjiang:61, Anhui: 4151, Sichuan:30789, ZHejiang: 3732, Guizhou: 2799, Jiangxi: 2162, Yunnan: 1482. THe Hainan province was not established yet, and I did not find Tibet. I added toal number to about 170,000.Dongwenliang 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not count the misssing number. If you add 148,000 with 29,000, the total is 170,000. Dongwenliang 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And so parsecboy, do you have a break down death number from each state of USA?Dongwenliang —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right here, provided by another user the other time this came up. It's actually got some pretty good statistics at the bottom of the page, and explains pretty well. Parsecboy 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the "Entrance of China" Section

The last paragraph of the section "Invasion of North Korea" and the first paragraph of "Entrance of China" conflict. The latter paragraph has three uncited statements that seem to be the cause of the problem. Someone with a good grasp of these pivotal events, namely the causes of the PRC's entrance into the war, needs to clear this up. 70.18.234.120 Maro Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007, 11:36 pm EST. —Preceding comment was added at 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Crimes against POWs by both sides?

The Crimes Against POWs section currently begins with the sentence: Prisoners of war were severely mistreated by both sides of the conflict. Yet the only specific instances given (and more importantly, the only cited claims) refer to crimes against POWs by North Korean forces. We should support the claim with evidence or remove it. Miraculouschaos 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment (closing two RfC's)

It seems that the RFC bot can only handle a single active RFC request per discussion page at any one time. Therefore I have provided an internal link to the second RFC issue, and deleted the second RFC template. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting comment on the following questions: (copied from the picture page itself):

1. Should the picture of the dead Chinese soldier stay in the article?
2. Is it appropriate to perform a revert to a state in time that negates around 350-400 subsequent edits?
3. Do you think this picture of a dead Chinese soldier with clear face is offensive to Chinese people?

• • 1. Yes, at least until such time as a suitable replacement would be found.
  • 2. Never. wbfergus ^Talk 19:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes, agreed with Wbfergus.
  • 2. No, it is not acceptable to revert several months worth of edits. Parsecboy 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes, no reason to hide anything, but I would ask if this particular picture has any significance? Has it been used elsewhere, or (like the picture of Baldomero Lopez climbing the seawall) does it have degree of notability in a of itself.
  • 2. Usually no, unless it is the most effective way back to an NPOV version, should never be done unilateraly. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. No, this is major point of bias.
  • 2. Usually no, unless it is to reverse unfounded and unilateral changes slipped at the first place and unless it can greatly improves the quality of the article. Postdoc 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes, especially in light of the "Featured Picture" status.
  • 2. No. It appears that by doing so, many valid edits were lost. Also, the person doing it, slipped in something that appears to have had consensus to remove. OracleDude 20:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes, agreed with wbfergus.
  • 2. No. It doesn't have any consensus, and it is not really as controversial like the Seigenthaler.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. No, the face identity of the dead soldier should not be shown in high resolution. Especially in a war picture that different countries and races participated. Showing a Chinese face on a body was bloodily killed is very bias. And also the image for US soldier show in a decent way.
  • 2. No. I am not sure why this question is asked. If it had been done it might be a mistake. Dongwenliang 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes - agree with wbfergus.
  • 2. Absolutely not. It's almost guaranteed that good, substantial edits will be lost if 350-400 are reverted. --FolicAcid 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes - agree with wbfergus.
  • 2. No - the article has clearly improved since then. Atomsgive 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes - Wikipedia shouldn't be swayed by POV of a political state or the people therein.
  • 2. No - Unless none of those edits contributed positively to the article, a unilateral revert of that many edits is not helpful. Cydevil38 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes. It certainly adds to the article.
  • 2. No. Too much would no doubt be lost.
  • 3. No. I don't see why. Dlabtot 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. Yes. While it is not necessary to understand the war, it adds something to the article. If an editor finds a photo that he or she believes would more effectively illustrate something about the article, let's discuss that.
  • 2. No, failing a rather exceptional circumstance. Editing is generally preferable to reverting anyway, except in case of vandalism.
  • 3. Perhaps. Immaterial, however, as wikipedia is not censored. Epthorn 16:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for another comment

It seems that the RFC bot can only handle a single active RFC request per discussion page at any one time. I have included an internal link to this section in the earlier RFCxxx template in the dcument, and removed the RFCxxx template from this section. Here is a link back to the earlier RFC section DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A Chinese soldier killed by US Marines of 1st Marine Division during an attack on Hill 105 in 1951.

Requesting comment on the following questions: (I only have two requests for this survey: 1. Answer with honesty. 2. Be consistent with above discussions your wrote down and your comments in my talk page):

1. Do you think this picture of a dead Chinese soldier with clear face is offensive to Chinese people?

• • Yes, the identity of the dead man in war should not be shown. Dongwenliang 14:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is comepletely irrelevant. I stress again, Dongwenliang, that you read WP:CENSOR. The image adds to the article; whether you find it offensive or not does not matter. You cannot force your opinions on the rest of the world that will come to read this article. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Profanity, the first line reads

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate..."

This image fills all three of those requirements. If you want to find a replacement image with a dead Chinese soldier face down, that is in public domain, go right ahead. Until you or anyone else does so, however, this image will remain in the article. Parsecboy 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to find out if I am the only one feels offensive, or most Chinese people feel the same way. I maybe over-react, my father is a Chinese Korea War veteran. He lost some of his best friends in the war. The PVA was the only army force whom did not accused of killing civilians during Korea War as I know, among all the parties participated. I think I may also in the conflict of interets. Dongwenliang 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one other argument here Dong. You said that as a Chinese person, you are offended by the picture of because you can see his face. Well, by looking at the caption, you should be able to tell already that it would probably be something that would offend you, yet you obviously have clicked on the picture (to make it larger), since you cannot clearly see his face until viewed full size. So, with forewarning that the picture may very well offend you, you take a detailed look at it anyway just so you can be offended. This simply does not make sense. wbfergus ^Talk 10:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Parsecboy's above comment. The dead should be respected, and shown to be such. Crisco 1492 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes.

But, let me come to the real question here. The point is that it is non-neutral because of the intentions behind this picture. It was taken as a showcase by "the winners", in the same way as hunters posing with their preys. It is a blatant showing off. It is released from the US army archives. Did the US army release similar pictures of US solders? No. This non-neutral picture is a major eye-catching point of the this article, and it violates the neutral stands of Wikipedia. I don't care whether it shows up in in other websites. If Wikipedia claims one thing but is doing another thing, it is hypocrisy.

People said that it is egregious for Microsoft employees to temper with their own wikipedia sites. Well, look at this site. It even contains sections literally plagiarized from the US ARMY documents. If you believe in what the US government said, you would think the IRAQ would have been over a long ago. Postdoc 05:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the photographer was actually a Navy corpsman attached to the U.S. Marines not Army, and I've seen a photo taken by Chinese with a sign placed on a dead UN soldier saying 'foreign invader' or something along those lines, so surely the Chinese weren't innocent of taking 'trophy' photographs whenever they could. This isn't such a photograph anyway, it just shows a dead soldier on a battlefield, there is no posing or apparent NPOV violation Atomsgive 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Postdoc, your arguments make no sense. If the Army ran the governmnet, Truman couldn't have fired MacArthur. There is a difference between the Army and the Government here in America (unlike some countries). Trophy pictures have the person who took the killing shot posed with the 'trophy'. It is blatantly obvious that this does not happen in this picture. So, both of your arguments are invalid. wbfergus ^Talk 10:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 1. (Even though this RfC says two questions, there is only one). To answer the question, I don't know, I haven't been over to China to start taking a poll of all of the residents there. Anyway, the question has no bearing on this article. All it takes is to look at the picture's FP infobox above. It was given the status before I ever started trying to work on this article, yet it explicitly states "This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article." So, removing this picture will be met with a lot of resistance from a lot of people, for the reasons stated. It's a no-brainer, if you want to replace it, you better find a good replacement that can, and does, meet the same criteria. Find one, upload it to the Commons, submit it for FP status. If it passes, it will be deemed a viable alternative. Otherwise, it's not even worthy of discussion. wbfergus ^Talk 10:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Do you think this picture of a dead Chinese soldier with clear face is offensive to Chinese people?" Yes, me and dong are probably the only two Chinese who are discussing this topic, and we both are clearly offended by this picture, if you want more solid proof, conduct a through survey, although it would be hard to survey every Chinese in the whole world in order to provide an unquestionable non-biased survey(an absolutely time-consuming task) We're not here to talk about whether the reason behind why some find this picture offensive and some don't. If you are not Chinese, or does not held a valid and valuable point to this discussion please don't discuss this. (talking about how someone like yourself who is not Chinese are offended or not offended by this image is an example of an invalid point) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playtom (talk • contribs) 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it just better to not place a picture there at all? Take the picture out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.248.22 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• WikiPedia seems to have lots of pictures and articles on it that may be considered offensive to one group of people or another at any one point in time. For that matter, so do lots of other web sites, books, magazines, etc. I hardly think though that that is a reason to remove something. That is censorship, and WikiPedia states that it is not censored. It seems that common sense by though who object is clearly in order. If you don't like smoking, don't go into a place that allows smoking. If you don't like kids, don't go to a place that's geared towards kids. If you don't like pictures of dead people, don't read articles about war or death. Just plain old common sense. The question itself, "Do you think this picture of a dead Chinese soldier with clear face is offensive to Chinese people?" is clearly worded to promote a Chinese point of view as well, which I believe would violate the NPOV policy. OracleDude 13:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not censorship when removing a picture that's not notable enough to be included in the article. I don't see what's so important about putting the picture of a dead man in the section. Does it contribute to anything? Does it imply the horrors of war or just a morbid fascination with death? Either way, the picture does not belong in this article, but maybe some Korean War photo book. Besides, it offends some people, so remove the picture.--141.213.196.173 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is censorship. Also, since you so obviously are so biased that you decided to ignore it, please re-read the RfC above this one, specifically where it states "This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article. If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it." This completely trashes your argument about the picture itself not being notable. Other Wikipedians, before many of us engaged in this argument started (check the FP history, wherever that is) decided to give this particular picture "Notability" status. So, the notability issue you try to use is clearly false. You also say it adds nothing to the article, again, this has been voted on by the Wikipedia community with the decision being that it does help improve the article, so again, one of your arguments is blatantly false (per the Wikipedia community). If you are going to attempt to make arguments to push your Point of View, then at least try to have the common sense and respect for other editors to, to do so with arguments that are clearly not based on falsehoods or other misrepresentations. wbfergus ^Talk 12:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• There are images I see on wikipedia that I am offended by. Wikipedia cannot be edited according to what Chinese people hate/like. Good friend100 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's offensive and unnecessary. Doesn't matter if you are from China or Venus. The photo is unnecessarily graphic and adds nothing to the article that could not be added by a less offensive photo. if the point is to show what Chinese soldiers looked like (equipment, uniform etc) surely a less offensive photo can be found. If the purpose is to show that people get killed in wars, again a less brutal photo could be used. DMorpheus 13:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is an image that we put in the article (because pro-China editors were complaining for so long) of an American POW who has part of his head blown off. No english editor is offended. Didn't I explain that there are images that I am offended by? Do I sit and complain in the that article's talk page? Just treat it as part of the article. If you truly believe that this is done in bias, complain to FA reviewers because I don't understand that this image is FA status. Good friend100 13:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• The dead Chinese soldier adds nothing to the article. Does it show the result of a war crime or just simply another casualty of war? If so, is it in the article just because to entertain people's morbid fascination of death or to offend or ridicule the Chinese soldiers? Take the picture out, it's more suitable in a picture book, but not in this article as it adds nothing of value (and offends some people).--141.213.196.173 21:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with people who have nationalistic feelings about this. Read WP:CENSOR. Good friend100 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea why anyone would find it offensive. In war, soldiers die. This is a simple illustration of that fact. Dlabtot 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• yes, people die in wars, and this picture adds nothing to the article. It is unnecessary so take it out.--141.211.248.35 03:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• There hasn't been one single argument made for removing the picture from the article that does not have a censorship and POV slant to it. If it is offensive, don't click on it so that you can see it clearly. At it's thumbnail size, you can't see it clearly. There are many pictures here on Wikipedia that I and many others find offensive, yet we abide by Wikipedia's clear-cut rules of no censorship. You should as well. Wikipedia wasn't created to be non-offensive to everybody, it was created to be a free, web accesible repository of published and verifiable knowledge from other free resources and or publishers. In some cases, the article and its other contents may be offensive to someone at some point in time on any given day. That in itself is not justification for removal of any material, graphic or textual, unless such article content is either blatantly false (unsubstantiated gossip, statements, etc.), may cause a living person to file a defamation or libel lawsuit against Wikipedia for damage to their reputation, etc. Removal of material due to somebody not liking something is nowhere to be found in any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, except as something to be reverted as soon as possible. wbfergus ^Talk 12:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem here is that the chinese soldier is obviously dead. Wikipedia doesn't censor dead people, even if his head is blown off, no one can remove it for any reason except for it's shock value.
  • "Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends all over the world. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies. This policy outlines the minimum standards that our subjects can expect when we write about them and when they complain about our edits."
    • Sometime publishing stuff about dead people can affect the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends all over the world too. Photos taken and published to wikipedia are not always known, like if you published a poor homeless person living in a no-internet no-phone no modern technology region, the chances are one in a billion that person will find this picture. And who is the dead soldier's friend, family and colleague? You know what i'm talking about. This is just a matter of how many chinese are willing to stand up and argue this, because, even if wikipedia doesn't censor dead people, rules can still be broken or compromised if enough people object it. My arguement is really only expressing my own opinion and have little effect next to nothing. If 2000 people spammed the talk page and requesting removal of the picture, i'm sure they will remove it to avoid further trouble.--Playtom 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting meat puppetry? No, rules are not broken, for any reason whatsoever. Consensus goes is very important, but does not supersede Wikipedia policy. Your argument about the homeless man is irrelevant. It does not matter that people who knew this dead soldier may see the image. Policy is policy. Parsecboy 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there concensus to close the RfC's?

In my opinion, the RfC's have run their course. The comments made by various users seem to have concensus for the following:

• The picture should stay.
• It is never okay (especially in this case) to revert to a far older version whereby 350-400 subsequent edits are lost.
• It doesn't matter, as Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't be opposed to the images being thumbnailed to a smaller size though, as they are in some other articles, like Axe Murder Incident.

But, before I remove the RfC tags, I want to make sure that nobody else has any objections and can present a valid argument for keeping them active. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that the issue is more or less over. Consensus is clearly in favor of retaining the image. Also, no one has commented on the topic from a opposing viewpoint in quite a while, so again, more indication of consensus. Go ahead and close it. Parsecboy 14:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Close, please.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 12:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh, the Axe Murder Incident is another reason why I hate North Korea.

On topic: If we still have objections, I think we should make the picture a thumbnail size. Perhaps a gallery of a number of Korean war images? There are many many good pictures from Wikipedia commons. Good friend100 04:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the image sizes so that they are all smaller, with the exception of the montage in the infobox. Now, all the images are the same size and smaller than they were, so they are all consistent in size and clarity. I've thought about a sub-page for images linked from the Commons, as I don't really like the layout there on the Commons that much for an article, but perhaps just a straight link would work. Either way though, some work would need to be done to ensure that all applicable images are easily accessible through the same spot.

Off-topic, having lived and worked at Panmunjeom for two years, even for the Axe Murder Incident, there's plenty of reasons to 'dislike' North Korea. wbfergus ^Talk 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

JSA Movie

Is there a reason why Joint Security Area isn't included in the film section? -- 64.180.70.35 (talk)

Add the article since its relevant. You don't have to ask for "permission" to put it in. -- Good friend100 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a Korean War movie. Go to the DMZ article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Seoul article is a total joke

These four bttles were among the bloodiest in the entire war, costing lives of thousands soldiers and civilians. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bazooka inaccuracy

"The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. These weapons could pierce the armor of the T-34-85s only at extremely close range." armour penetration of HEAT weapons like the bazooka is independent of range. i'll remove this sentence unless someone wants to rewrite--Mongreilf (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. These weapons could pierce the armor of the T-34-85s, but only had an effective range of 120 yards (110 m)." I vaguely remember reading somewhere else, that because of the short range and the proximity of NK infantry, either the ROK troops were quickly killed or they didn't dare to fire them, something like that. Probably in one of the cited refs. wbfergus ^Talk 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Causes

Would be nice to have a "causes" of the war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.125.212 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

" a BALD attempt to blackmail the UN "

There is an inaccuracy which a registered user may wish to correct.

'China warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as “a bold attempt to blackmail the U.N.” and did not take it seriously'

This should actually read: China warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as “a BALD attempt to blackmail the U.N.” and did not take it seriously.

A small mistake i know but accuracy defines the right from the lazy ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.124.228 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it at one point did say "bald". Someone probably thought it was a typo, and "fixed" it. I'll correct it now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Air war ?

The Corean Air War was a pure "fighter" war, fought by fighter planes ? Did you really believe that ? I rather believe the author missed the point. What about the bombings, the B-29 fleet burning down Northern Korea - no part of air war, or what should one think ? WernerErnie, 28.1.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdated Soviet equipment?

Why is the equipment North Korea got from the Soviet Union referred to as outdated? T-34s certainly weren't outdated by 1950. A piece of equipment is not outdated just because someone, somewhere has something better. -Sensemaker

First off, new topics go on the bottom of the talk page. As for your question, given that the Soviets were dumping T34s because they had had the T54/55 for a few years before the start of the war, it is fair to say the tanks were outdated. They were also inferior to the primary US tank they were facing, the M46 Patton. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That a newer model as existed for a three years might be enough to call a computer outdated, but certainly not a tank in my opinion. If the Soviets considered the T34 so inferior that they "dumped" it on the North Koreans, why did they continue to produce it for six more years (according to the wiki article)? Outdated means "Out of date, old-fashioned, antiquated" according to the wiktionary. If one of the finest tank-producing countries in the world continues to produce it for six more years it is not out of date, old-fashioned or antiquated. As for the M46 versus T34 comparison it is a 26 ton tank (T34) versus a a 44 ton tank (M46). If the 44 ton tank doesn't win most of the time, something is very wrong. -Sensemaker

Because it was cheap and easy to produce? Because that's how the Soviets did things? They still have thousands of T-55s in reserve, even though they'd be annihalated on the modern battlefield. If the T34s were top of the line, they wouldn't just give them away. Given the rate of tank development between 1941 and 1950, it's fair to say the T34 was outdated. Just compare the armor differences between the T34 and its successor, the T54/55. The best T34s had armor ranging from 20mm to 90mm; the T54/55 had between 20mm and 203mm. In the stronger areas of the tank, the T34 had less than half the protection of its direct successor. That's a huge difference. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea as to the cost of producing a T34 versus the cost of a T55. The cliché of clunky, mass-produced, cheap Soviet equipment has some truth in it, but you cannot take for granted that it is cheap, mass-produced and unmodern just because it is from the Soviet Union. That T55s are still in reserve would be a good counter-argument if I had argued that T34s were still in reserve. I didn't. I'm saying that T34s were still in production in 1950 and that they would remain in production for another six years. Armour comparison between tanks with completely different weights are as irrelevant as comparing the armour of a cruiser with a battleship. Show me a tank of roughly the same weight and I will accept your comparison. Yes, tank development was fast in the 40s but there is no way I would call a tank outdated just because a more modern version has existed for three years in peacetime. That would be like arguing that M60 was outdated at 1982! -Sensemaker

My point in armor comparison was that the T34 was the of the old "medium tank", the T54/55 was an early main battle tank, so in that sense, the T34 was indeed outdated. My point in regards to the fact that the Russians still have T55s in reserve is that the Soviets/Russians had/have the tendency to hold onto military equipment, no matter how old it is. Therefore, that the T34 was still in production in 1950 isn't really relevant to whether the design was outdated or not. The T55 was in production until 1979, even though it was unquestionably outdated, the Soviets kept building them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that it was still in production and sent to a war zone meant that at least the Soviet decision-makers thought it wasn't outdated. It was roughly equivalent of the two years younger M4 US tank that was extensively used by the US in Korea. Since Americans sent that tank to Korea in significant numbers it is obviously American decision makers thought that the equivalent M4 and T34 tanks weren't outdated. The American soldiers who faced it at the early stages of the war certainly didn't think so either. If you wish to have a different opinion, you are free to do so, but it will take some very good arguments to persuade me that you are right and they were wrong. -Sensemaker

And yet another way of looking at it is did the Soviets themselves consider the T-34 a front-line tank, or did they they replace their own stocks with a newer model. Whether they were still making and selling them is immaterial, unless they were still making them for their own use. Many countries/arms makers, make older models of weaponry because some buyers can't afford sufficient numbers of newer equipment. So, to acomplish the numbers game, they buy more of older models instead of fewer newer models. Also, the Soviets didn't send anything to North Korea for free, they made North Korea pay for everything, so it doesn't matter what the 'Soviet decision-makers' thought (which would be original research anyway, unless you can find a published reference saying otherwise). wbfergus ^Talk 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So the Koreans paid full price for their T34? That was new to me. I guess that means that Soviet decision makers opinion as to the usefulness of the tanks doesn't matter. Just like you wrote wbfergus. However it means instead that North Korea's armament procurement specialists thought that the T34 was the best bang-for-buck they could get their hands on. When something is the best bang-for-buck you can get your hands on it defintely ain't outdated, at least not for you. You are absolutely right that perhaps the most important criteria is if the Soviets themselves considered it a front-line tank in the year 1950. As far as I know, they did. According to the article, the Finns thought it was useful until the 1960s. -Sensemaker

There are two reasons the Soviets sent the T34 to the DPRK, and not the more advanced T54/55. First, there was a desire to keep the best tank they had a secret from Western intelligence. The T54/55 wasn't known to Western militaries until 1960. Also, they didn't necessarily want to be giving their best tanks to an ally whose victory was questionable in the first place, again, to prevent those tanks from falling into NATO hands. As to your last point, just because a weapon is still effective in combat doesn't mean it's still on the cutting edge. The Mosin Nagants used by the North Koreans were a 60+ year old design (1889), but they were still more than able to kill an enemy soldier. Definitely outdated, despite its continued effectiveness. Heck, the Kar98K, the main German infantry weapon during WWII, traces its development to 1898, surely obsolete when compared to the self-loading M1 Garand or SVT40 used by their opponents. History is replete with examples of militaries using old equipment because they don't have the industrial ability/money/whatever to get more up-to-date weaponry. This is just one more case. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask to remind you that the Soviets did send their best aircraft into this conflict. That T34s were sent/sold to Korea is no indication of the T34 being outdated. When you write: "As to your last point, just because a weapon is still effective in combat doesn't mean it's still on the cutting edge." you make me think that in your mind anything that is not cutting edge top-modern is outdated. That is a very broad use of the word 'outdated'. In your use of the word something goes from being top-modern, state of the art directly to being outdated. In my vocabulary something is first top modern, then goes on to being less than top modern but still useful and finally, when it is so old it would be downright irresponsible to equip forces that are supposed to fight modern forces with it it is outdated. It is thus mostly a question of semantics. You and I both know how modern a T34 was in 1950 but we have different opinions as to what "outdated" means. I would say most military procurement specialists and the military analysts you find in Jane's Defense Weekly use the term 'outdated' in a way that is more consistent with my definition. To further complicate matters, there is a matter of national perspective. The US and UK that have a very high national income to army size quota can afford to spend a lot of money to equip each soldier and thus replace weapons much faster than other, more normal nations. -Sensemaker

Reading the sentence in question, it is obvious it refers to all DPRK Army equipment; nowhere does the sentence refer specifically to T-34-85s or other tanks. The DPRK was indeed equipped with a wide variety of equipment including ex-US equipment presumably taken over from Chinese WW2 Lend-lease stocks, old Red Army bolt-action rifles, towed 45mm AT guns that were dodgy in 1943, and so forth. I think it's fair to describe much of it as outdated. Not all of it, but it's a summary-type sentence and I think it is OK.

The USSR maintained huge stocks of T-34-85s into the 1960s as reserves. I will look up the US tank strength; I am not sure the M46 was the 'primary' tank. But we'll look it up and see. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the word "outdated" occurs three times in the article always referring to Soviet-style equipment and on one occasion explicitly referring to "tanks and heavy equipment". That sentence should be edited in my opinon. -Sensemaker

The M46 was not the primary tank faced by DPRK forces. Here's a breakdown of US tank strength for the entire war from Steve Zaloga's "The M26/M46 Pershing Tanks 1943-53" ISBN 1 841762024, p.40:

M4 Sherman: 679

M26 Pershing: 309

M46 Patton: 200

M24 Chaffee: 138

Total: 1,326. Of this total the M46 formed about 15% of US tanks. M46s were involved in about 12% of the 119 tank-versus-tank engagements during the war. Since all the M46s arrived after September 1950, and most of the tank fighting took place before then, they did not get a lot of opportunities to face DPRK T-34-85s. Thus the question of whether the T-34-85 was "outdated" is best answered by comparing it to the tanks it faced most often, the M4 and M26.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job DMorpheus. Judging from what the articles on T34 and M4 say, these two tanks were roughly equivalent. M26 versus T34 is unfair since it is a 42 ton heavy tank versus a 26 ton medium tank. Apples and oranges. The medium tank is faster and has two and a half time the operational range but a smaller gun and less armour. M24 Apparently fared badly against T34 according to the wiki article, but that is pretty much expected of light tank versus medium tank. Apparently they were equal in speed and the T34 had two and a half times the range. So the T34s in the Korean war were as good as the tanks they faced and pretty well-protected against the anti-tank weapons available. Now that is definitely not outdated. -Sensemaker

I have now removed the word "outdated" from the sentence that called Soviet tanks and heavy equipment outdated. Two other sentencing talking about North Korea's outdated equipment remains. We have established the T34-85s cannot reasonably be called outdated in 1950. Since other equipment might be, the word "outdated" stays in the other cases. -Sensemaker

The film director Anthony Mann's name is misspelled in the Korean War article -- it should have two n's in it.

Andrew Szanton, February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.179.134 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3 out of 5 pics in the collage are from Inchon

Come on. One is enough, two is max. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the page should have more picture from other battle. Not just the decisive battle. --Mike Ma

I only see 2; the Marine climbing over the seawall, and the one of the LSTs unloading supplies. Where's #3? The image of trucks is at the 38th Parallel. Surely you're not referring to the image of the F-86, which weren't fielded in country until Dec. 1950, a full 3 months after the landings at Incheon. Lastly, the image of Chinese soldiers clearly cannot be from Incheon, for similar anachronistic reasons. I'm not objecting to any image changes; if better ones can be found, I'm all for it. I'm just a little curious as to what you two are talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

again, i saddened at how an article on the KOREAN war makes the korean people next to invisible. where are they millions of people who paid the heaviest price in this war? why so many AMERICAN PIX shown when other armies and Korean people suffered far more. how about some pix to remind all these american readers that the war was NOT primarily about the US, but about the Korean people?

i remember seeing, at one time, a good pix of a korean girl carrying a baby on her back, standing in front of an american tank. that would be good if it is allowed. it is shown on the japanese and chinese versions of this article. the korean language version of this article has some interesting pix. maybe they would help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkyongnae (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is the English language Wiki, so most of our images come from English speaking sources, in this case, the US military. Very few people who work on this article regularly can read Chinese or Korean, so it becomes very difficult to find images other than those taken by American photographers. If you have images that are suitably licensed (public domain if possible), by all means, upload them. We can discuss here which images should constitute the new infobox montage. Parsecboy (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try finding one.(I'm the one who gave you your wikichevron)Kfc18645 talk 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhee government killed 100,000 people in the period before the out break of war?

The qualifier tacked onto the Rhee government, "American-armed" suggests a hint of bias, and I've never heard of such a claim. While the typical Korean War historiography turns the other cheek to South Korean political repression and violence, 100,000 people dead in a few years amounts to a petite genocide. Citation is needed or it should be removed until resolved. Thoughts on the claim itself? Dawson (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the claim, although "American-armed" may be problematic. I recall believing it when I read and checked it, but I don't recall where. RJ Rummel puts the total number for "domestic democide" in the ROK, 1945-1987, at 15,000 - 54,000 tending towards 23,000. <eleland/talkedits> 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

bruce cumings' origins of the korea war (vols. 1 & 2) is a good source for this. as for being "american armed," who else gave weapons and training to the SK police and military to any significant degree? it was the american military government who accepted, and at times approved, the wide spread political suppression killings by the rhee regime in the name of "anti-communism" and "stability."

one last point, why is it "a hint of bias" to state the SK regime was "american armed" but it isnt bias to omit the claim? this is the fundamental problem with wiki's self-contradictory NPOV stand. as is shown time and time and time again in this article, only POV exists. but that is another argument. Hongkyongnae (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The article currently extensively points out on several places that North Korea was armed by the Soviets (despite the fact that they weren't given Soviet equipment, they had to pay for them or so I'm told). If it is a hint of bias to say that South Korea was armed by the US we must likewise remove references to North Korea being armed by the Soviets. -Sensemaker

Agreed with Sensemaker; there's nothing wrong with describing both militaries on equal terms. The Soviets armed the North, the US armed the South. Plain and simple facts; if anyone sees bias in this description, then it's probably because you've read too much cold war propaganda. Move on; it's not 1953 anymore. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because saying the South Koreans were armed by the American once should be good enough. Does it repeatedly mention, as if to indicate complicity, that the North Koreans were armed by the Soviets after every misdeed they're recorded as having committed? - Schrandit (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Once it is mentioned immediately after North Korea’s intention to unite the peninsula by force and expressly stating that it was this equipment that made such aggression possible strongly suggesting complicity or even intention from the Soviet side. That same sentence calls South Korea’s support “limited” in contrast to the Soviet aid. It is thus implied that Soviet support for North Koreas was almost limitless in comparison. Was truly Soviet aid truly so much greater to warrant such a choice of words. I have no figures from a reliable source to verify or refute such a claim. -Sensemaker

I don't think this is the section you are referring to, but I added a couple refs clarifying NK's payments to the Soviets for arms and equipement. However, while I was doing this, I also saw that a bit over one whole paragraph is somehow missing from the article, though if you look at it in the editor, it is there. I ran across it when I saw the red reference link (MacroHistory). The text is in the ditor, but it's not appearring on the article page. I need another set of eyes to help look it over and see why it's not appearing. It's probably a missing angle bracket "<" or ">" or something like that, but I don't see it. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found it. There was a missing trailing "/" after a reference name. wbfergus ^Talk 13:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

References

A couple points/thoughts about the recent slew of citation requests.

1. Some of them are good, valid requests. Others are contained in the refs either immediately before or after where the request is at. I have seen/read many of those statements in the provided refs myself. Those who request them should make the minimal effort to at least look to see if those statements are included in the provided refs before or after where they made their request. Otherwise, almost every sentence or part of a sentence would need to have it's own citation. It's kind of silly (and looks bad) having the same ref cited three or places in the same paragraph because somebody is to lazy to check the provided ref.
2. If you are going to provide a ref or request one, at least do it the right way. I just fixed a request that was 'formed' as a reference, with a reference a couple sentences ahead of it.

Minor points, but this article needs so much additional work, these minor annoyances detract from accomplishing real 'repairs'. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Naval Support in the Korean War

Reproducing the relevant section of the reference for those without free access to journals:

"43 During the Korean War (which occurred during the American Occupation of Japan and prior to the establishment of the SDF in 1954), Japanese ships were involved in minesweeping and a number of Japanese were killed. The Japanese were also engaged in servicing and repair of US military equipment. During the Vietnam War, Japan provided political and diplomatic support but no logistical support, although the United States used the Okinawa bases to launch bombing attacks in Vietnam (Okinawa was under US administration until 1972). After the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty, US forces ceased direct attacks from Japan. Personal interview, Associate Professor Katahara Eiichi, Canberra (March 2000)." - [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713604482 Mulgan, Aurelia George (2000) 'Beyond Self-defence? Evaluating Japan's Regional Security Role under the New Defence Cooperation Guidelines', Global Change, Peace & Security, 12:3, 223 - 246], page 229, footnote #43

Dr. Katahara Eiichi is in fact a fellow Chief, 1st Research Office, Research Department at National Institute of Defense Studies (NIDS), Tokyo, Japan. The NIDS website describes his area of expertise as "International Relations, US defense policy, Japan's foreign and security policy, US-Japan security relations, International Relations in East Asia and the Pacific". The Australian Defence College, Canberra website lists this same Katahara Eiichi of the Tokyo NIDS as a visiting fellow (retrieved 3.26.05).

Since this seems to be a fact that would have been kept secret at the time, and is rarely even mentioned in the literature, I wonder what extent the cover up was at the time, i.e. were the Japanese sailors families notified of the true cause of their deaths? (24.7.75.93 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

It is somewhat disingenuous to include the Japanese flag among the 16 nations that joined the South Koreans within the UN coalition. Though the facts presented above may very well be true, the UN coalition did not include Japan. There are 16 monuments commemorating assistance from allies scattered across the northern part of South Korea – there aren’t 17. There are 16 foreign flags flying on the southern side of the DMZ at Panmunjom – not 17. The Cemetery at the UN Memorial Park in Pusan holds the remains of soldiers from 10 nations in the coalition and acknowledgement that the remains of soldiers from six other allied nations were repatriated after the war – for a total of 16 nations, not 17. If Japan is to be included in the list of belligerents, then it should be done with a very clear asterisks denoting that Wikipedia, unlike an encyclopedia, is postulating something new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.82.164 (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 202.70.82.164 that it is an inaccurate representation to list Japan to appear as a UN coalition country. To differentiate while labeling clearly, I added a subcategory called "Naval Support and Military Servicing/Repairs". I do not think this is postulating something new, only something rarely covered, as it is supported by a journal reference which comes from a Japanese military academic source whose credentials I pointed to above. (24.7.75.93 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

summary of last edit

The Korean War was a very carefully planned invasion by North Korea. The date was chosen to overlap with the time of summer vacation for most South Korean soldiers. It was not some accident that occurred after a couple of border skirmishes, as the article states. Perhaps that's what North Korea and her sympathizers might like you to believe. Before the invasion, Kim Il-Sung conferred with Stalin and Mao and got their approval. Stalin provided much of the military equipment and supplies. Mao promised backup support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.183.78 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your change, for a couple of reasons. First, it's unsourced. Also, it never states that the war was an "accident", instead, and correctly, it states that the war was an escalation of border clashes and failed diplomatic attempts to unify the country. Thirdly, it's highly disingenous to blame the North Koreans for the war entirely, just as it was equally disingenous to blame Germany for WWI. Yes, Kim Il-Sung got Stalin's approval for the war; that doesn't mean Rho's government was entirely virginal in the matter. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think within anywhere of the article, it states that the war was an "accident." I am no Russian expert, so I can't say if Stalin promised anything. However, I can tell you this --- Mao did want a united Communist Controlled Korea, but after just finishing the Chinese civil war, the new born PRC was in no position to take on another major war. Therefore, the best he could do at the beginning was "moral support." There was so much debate within the PRC dealers, even till the last min, to see if they should send troops. Mao even wanted KIS to form a Government in exile in Manchuria instead. (if you read Chinese, you can refer to the Wiki Chinese (zh) on this issue, it has plenty information.) TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article stated that the War resulted from an escalation of border clashes. While border clashes did occur and continue to occur today (at a much lower frequency and intensity), that has little bearing on the fact that the War was a carefully planned and executed effort that had been in the works for years. The North Korean troop buildup at the border, acquisition and deployment of Soviet tanks for rapid penetration into the South Korean territory, massive air attacks that almost instantaneously wiped out the virtually nonexistent South Korean air force, and the timing of the invasion to coincide with the summer vacation for most South Korean troops, all point to a longstanding plan to launch a massive overwhelming invasion. Your claim that South Korea was also responsible for the War is quite laughable. There is just no way South Koreans would have wanted this war, a war they knew very well they would lose. The lines about South Koreans refusing a general election in the preceding years is also not quite accurate. In fact, it was the North Korean Communists who closed the border.

The person who refers to a Chinese website for validation. Why should we trust the Chinese to tell an accurate version of Korean history? Please go edit Chinese articles as you see fit and leave this article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.219.153 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"A Chinese website"? You are referring to the wiki Chinese section?! Oh no, I know you don't read Chinese, so why don't you just leave the talking for me OK? I was answering the question about the Chinese participation during the Korean War. If you think you have the best logical answer to why the Chinese participated in the war? Then please, share with us. I edit enough Chinese articles, thank you. Besides, sign your post. TheAsianGURU (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AsianGURU and I would comment on his great style. Euge246 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay calm. There's no need to be insulting, TheAsianGURU; it's not productive in any way. It would be best if you removed the inflammatory remarks from your post. As for the issue at hand, 70/170, why don't you provide some sources that justify your claims? As to your claims about the complete innocence of South Korea, do you believe the same thing about Iraq in regards to the 2003 invasion by the US? Here's a hint; the RoK can't be lily-white if Iraq isn't; it's essentially the same situation, just different points of view (legitimate differing viewpoints, not the connotations "POV" has here on Wiki). Have you ever heard the expression "it takes two to tango?" Parsecboy (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The ROK can't be lily-white if Iraq isn't? What kind of reasoning is that? Are you saying that ROK was developing weapons of mass destruction or even pretending to develop one? Are you saying that there was a legitimate reason such as self-defense why North Korea could invade South Korea?

There is nothing to justify. It is an incontrovertible, historical fact that the War was a consequence of premeditated, long-planned invasion on a massive scale. I do not know of any reason why South Korea would have invited a war. The burden is on YOU to provide any evidence that South Korea triggered this war. Border clashes do not qualify. To give an analogy, this is akin to describing a premeditated murder as an "escalation of arguments" that turned violent. That there were arguments does not change the main fact that the attack was premeditated, nor does it erase the fact that a handgun was purchased recently and brought hidden to the site of the crime. You are trying to label a first-degree murder as an involuntary manslaughter, so it's a factual error. There is a huge body of evidence to show that the invasion was executed by North Korea in a systematic fashion.

Please do not patronize. I have two doctorates and have lived in Korea as well as in the U.S. and studied Korean history.

Asian GURU, you should change your username to Chinese GURU, since China is just one part of Asia; stop pretending to be an expert in all of Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.224.193 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the RoK cannot be devoid of partial complicity if Iraq isn't. Iraq was making no threatening actions, as we can now see, they were not developing any type of WMDs. Were it not for the minute technicality that the first Gulf War only ended in a ceasefire (much like the Korean War), the 2nd invasion would've been just as illegal as the North's invasion of South Korea. But this is beside the point.

Yes, the attack was premeditated, like every single war in history. Why is it necessary to point that out? I don't think there's ever been a case where someone intentionally invaded another country "accidentally". That's the problem I have with your edits; they're couched in POV language that makes it out that the DPRK was evil, intent on conquering the RoK, as if the RoK was content to just sit there and smell daisies all day. The fact remains that both sides were initiating border clashes; it was just the DPRK that struck decisively first.

Just another point, a good chunk of your edit is redundant to text just a few lines below it.

Another point; you've made your initial edit to the page last evening, and have then reverted it three times in less than 24 hours. If you revert again today, you'll have violated WP:3RR, and will be subject to a temporary block from editing. I suggest you stop edit-warring here.

One last point, this sniping between you and TheAsianGURU needs to stop. Ad hominems will get you nowhere in the debate; instead blocked for incivility. I said it once before, I won't say it again. We don't tolerate incivility here on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy - Please look at the Iraq War article. It says it is a conflict that began with the United States led invasion of Iraq. It does NOT say it was an escalation of tension between the United States and Iraq over the perceived presence of nuclear weapons. In every case of war in human history, there is always a preceding period of tension between the two parties. It does NOT follow that each war is most accurately described as an escalation of tensions between the two parties with blame equally assigned to each. Poland was not equally responsible as the Nazis for the latter's invasion, and the Wikipedia article does not claim that they were equally complicit. Similarly, the attack on Pearl harbor is described in the Wikipedia article as a surprise attack on the U.S. Navy by the Japanese. Now, the U.S. had repeated frustrated Japanese ambitions in the Pacific, preventing them from getting their hands on crucial supplies, and in that sense, the U.S. was courting an attack one way or the other. However, the article does not start by saying that it was an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Japan. Why should the Korean War be singled out as a war where both sides must share the blame equally? It was a surprise attack, just as the Pearl Harbor was, and it was a premeditated, carefully planned attack, and this information is important to be included at the beginning of the article. If you disagree, please state your reasoning in a rational, scholarly fashion instead of being arbitrary and authoritative. Even if you are an administrator for Wikipedia, it does not mean that the article has to suite your POV.

You say that ROK was partially complicit. Please give specifics as to how; that's what I asked for and you have failed to give concrete examples. RoK may have wanted to invade DPRK in their fondest dreams, but in practice its military was no match for the DPRK's, they knew it well, and it was just a dream. That itself does not make them complicit or equally responsible for the War.

My edit says nothing about ROK being "good" and DPRK being "bad". It just says that the War resulted from an invasion, just as the Iraq war resulted from a U.S.-led invasion. It is a fact and does not reflect any bias, as you claim.

I will revert the edit, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.183.78 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Iraq War article states, it was an escalation of tensions in regards to percieved WMDs (at least officially, anyways). I don't see how you can argue that war is not the result of increasing tensions. Yes, there might be "official reasons" but the underlying cause is the increase in tensions. For example, the "real" reason Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 was because of the naval arms race, competition in colonial ambitions, etc. (i.e., tensions). The Belgian neutrality issue was a formality that gave the British legal justification. In the case of the Pacific War, the US had backed the Japanese into a corner, with the sole intention of forcing the Japanese to either pull out of China (which the US knew the Japanese would never do), or fire the first shot. From the diary of Henry Stimson, "The question was how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot...it was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors". Clearly that indicates complicity. Regardless, this has little to do with this argument. What other Wikipedia articles do is irrelevant here.

Again, I have given an example of how the RoK is partly complicit; the back and forth border attacks. Any act of aggression is clearly relevant. I also never said that the RoK was equally responsible, just partly so.

How do you know the RoKs knew their military was inferior to the DPRK? Do you have sources for your claims, or are you just speculating? Again, this is a problem with your edit; you're removing sourced info and replacing it with unsourced information. That's an unacceptable change.

You're also ignoring that the text does state that the war started when the North invaded the South. Really, all your edit is doing is adding the claim that the war was premeditated (which doesn't need to be stated, as we have agreed that every single war in history has been started by a premeditated attack), and removing relevant, sourced information.

Lastly, you violated WP:3RR, and therefore, I have blocked both of the IPs you've used for 48 hours. If you revert again with another IP, it will also be blocked, and your block will be extended. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Legacy Section

Someone should update the legacy section to reflect the change in government and policy in South Korea. Roh is referred to as the current president of Korea but that is no longer true. This should be done by someone with more knowedge about the issues than me in case you are wondering. Zamp m (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated this section you have notified. I have also written this as a seperate comment further down.Euge246 (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edits by IP editor and revert back

I hope the IP editor who made the substantial edits last night decides to come to this page to see the explanation. Your edits, while in general do coincide with the 'Be Bold' directive, were reverted for the following reasons:

1. Edits of such magnitude should be discussed here first.
2. Some of the edits removed source material.
3. As a result of the edits, myself and at least one other feel that the article has lost some of its NPOV stance, and was becoming more American oriented in its POV.

We've worked hard over the last year or two to accommodate the 'concerns' of various editors to alleviate the POV issues in the article. Some we made grudgingly, some we just outright rejected, but they were all thouroughly discussed here first. We welcome your contributions, but there are some procedures in place as well, along with numerous interested editors. Please come back here to discuss any future large-scale edits first, so that we can all see the various viewpoints for such edits and come to an agreement first, so we don't start another series of edit-wars. Also, since it looks like you have some opinions on this subject, how about creating an account, so you have a name and a talk page where things can be dicussed? Many of us are leery of edits by IP addresses, especially with all of the vandalism that has been done by IP address editors. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 11:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea and I agree with wbfergus. The IP should get an account on Wikipedia as it would benefit him greatly if he wants to edit the article. Please notify people if you are going to make a substantial change in the article by posting it on the disscussion page here.Euge246 (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violations are littered throughout those 2 sections I edited. I have no idea what this article has gone through but it is not in a NPOV. My objectives were to be neutral and thorough. I've added alot of information to certain events of the war that were omitted from the previous version. For example,

In late November, the Chinese struck in the west, along the Chongchon River, and completely overran several South Korean divisions and successfully landed a heavy blow to the flank of the remaining UN forces. The ensuing defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history.[42] In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, a 30,000 man unit from the U.S. 7th Infantry Division and U.S. Marine Corps was also unprepared for the Chinese tactics and was soon surrounded, though they eventually managed to escape the encirclement, albeit with over 15,000 casualties, after inflicting heavy casualties on six Chinese divisions.

This entire paragraph violates the NPOV rule. I can sum up this paragraph in a few sentences. Chinese completely destroyed the Americans. The Americans ran like they have never ran before. Alot of Americans died. There isn't a single mention of the UN/US/SK and what they did or how they reacted. This is just blatantly pro-Chinese.

My edits could be polished up and there might be some filler I missed deleting but it is by far a more details and more neutral view point. You can hardly call the previous version neutral.

You have 3 paragraphs that details Chinese tactics and how great they were. Are you kidding? You cannot call that NPOV.

99.238.165.215 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the annon on this one, the pervious version was decidedly anti-American and his (or her) edits come with sources (though they could do with a greater diversity of sources) - Schrandit (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted back again. The last two edits removed and completely hosed 17 (maybe 18?) different sourced statements and their references in the ref list near the bottom of the article. Several of those references are used in multiple places.

Like it or not, the Chinese did manage to kick our butt with inferior weapons and better tactics. Detailing what those tactics were improves the article, as their success was based on more than just sheer numbers. They were far more disciplined than the Americans. Due primarily to their numbers and tactics they effectively kicked our butts out of North Korea while reducing the 2nd Division to a shell of its former self. The last round of edits makes it sound as if the Chinese won by sheer weight of numbers alone. Many people want to know why and how the Chinese were able to kick our butts. Leaving it as just a numbers game is disingenious, as they still had the numbers (actually even more), later in the war, but the UN forces had adapted to their tactics by then and were able to effectively negate their tactics for the most part.

As can be clearly seen from many of edits on military articles, I'm far from being pro-communist, but the Chinese were a formidable adversary and merely wording the article so it sounds like numbers alone won their victories is false and misleading. And the sources cited in the rewrite are the same sources cited before the rewrite, but without the diversity of sources.

Using the example paragraph cited above, I fail to see how it is POV oriented. It clearly state that we (the Americans) were unprepared for the Chinese assaults. The retreat from Chosin was the longest in American history, two ROK divisions were overrun and basically wiped out, the elements of the 7th Division and the Marines were surrounded by at least 6 Chinese Divisions, and thet did fight their way while inflicting heavy casualties. How does that "clearly violate NPOV"?

This article does need some major improvements, but let's get it done as fairly and nuetrally as possible. The diveristy of sources lends balance, detailing the Chinese tactics explains how they were able to kick our butts in the beginning of their entrance. wbfergus ^Talk 10:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor argued that there aren't any explanations of how the UN forces reacted. What about the entire second half of the paragraph s/he cited? You know, the bit about Chosin? And you mean to tell us it's perfectly NPOV to discuss UN tactics, but somehow pro-communist to do the same for Chinese forces? Someone needs to take a closer look at WP:NPOV. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As a semi-compromise, how about working on the [[5]] section? That section needs a major rewrite utilizing the existing cited sources and whatever else can be found. wbfergus ^Talk 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese did use different tactics, but betters ones? Thats a matter of opinion - they had some great early results but at the same time they consumed ridiculous amounts of manpower and were ultimately fought to a standstill by a smaller force. I agree we were totally unprepared for Chosin and it was a crushing defeat but its a matter of debate as to whether numbers/surprise or superior tactics won the day for the Chinese, I'm not saying I have an answer to that debate but I think only one side is really explored in the current article. I know the impulse to respond to the annon's actions as one would vandalism but some of his (or her) material warrants coverage and some of the current material isn't sourced. I think we should both straighten this, and the nuclear section out, we are here in the pursuit of truth, to achieve a political balance would be nice (glad to know you're not a communist sympathizer) it would probably be untrue. I concede of course, that upon further examination the truth might stand solidly against me but if that is the case said truth must still be the basis of this article. - Schrandit (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Chinese involvement section is obviously in a pro-China POV. Success of tactics is a matter of opinion as Schrandit says. Not to mention what constitutes a success? If you look as casualties and casualty rates these tactics were not a factor. They may have given them an element of surprise but that lasts only for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.142.222 (talk • contribs)

Update of south korean president

I have successfully updated the legacy part of the article and have changed the information that Roh is the president to the current president, Lee. I thank the person who wrote about this problem in this disscussion area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euge246 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We want this article to be a rated an "A"

I believe that this article is at a high standard and that it should be rated an "A". Many other people probably agree with me and should put it in this disscussion area. Euge246 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 31/03/08

This article failed pretty miserably in its attempt just for GA status. Check the archives for details. A couple of the problems were lack of citations; most of that what is in the article is contained within the references cites already, but not all 'passages' are cited so it is clear where they came from. The section about the possibility of nuclear warfare also needs a major overhaul. I've made a few attempts at improving the article, but it is so time-consuming researching through all of the sources trying to find which passage is cited in which reference. wbfergus ^Talk 10:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review?

I notice that the article actually looks much better than Start-class, (well, at least B) so.... a peer review?-Kfc18645 talk 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with this person and I recommend another review on this article.Euge246 (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think that it's definitely not start class-why's there no people responding?Kfc18645 talk 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right off hand, I'd say it's probably a B-class. There's a lot of references, very few typos or grammatical errors, but it still needs a lot of work to get higher. wbfergus ^Talk 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should be B class, perhaps we should do a MILHIST peer review for it? Maybe get some pointers from a wider community? Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We've done that quite many times.Kfc18645 talk 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Soldier Casualties

Anybody else notice that the number of casualties (excluding civilians) for the North Koreans and Chinese exceeds the number of troops they deployed? Maybe I'm missing something here.... please tell me if I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.149.75.210 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the infobox again. Notice the little footnote in the "Strength" box that says "Note: All figures may vary according to source. This measures peak strength as sizes changed during the war." wbfergus ^Talk 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

soviet union doesn' exist anymore, why this country still in the Belligerents list ? i think some one should modify and put something next to "soviet Union" like this "no longer exist" or something else. what about china ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalh (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union existed then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.101.202 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

China exists now as well. Do other war articles have these? No.Kfc18645 talk 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See World War II. wbfergus ^Talk 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A couple sentences (just in the first few paragraphs) jump out as opinionated, considering Korean opinion of occupying powers and the actions of said powers. Could use a thorough look-through... on the whole it seems B-class. Reb42 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia casualites

Why no lsiting of Ethiopian casualites-Kagnew Battalion-121 Killed 536 wounded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.143 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'cause there's not enough space.Kfc18645 talk 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

it would make sense to put them in...if we're listing them by casualty number then they have more than the phillipines (geez, does that sound morbid or what?) 72.148.113.246 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification of Communist belligerents in the Korean War as Communists

Just cause tail-gunner Joe would have said it doesn't make it untrue. They were all self-professed Communist states fighting to, among other things, advance world Communism. Why shouldn't they be classified as Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why aren't the UN forces labeled "Capitalists"? Surely they had the exact same goals: to advance world capitalism. My point is that it's an outdated worldview to label them as a monolithic bloc bent on global domination, or at least incredibly jingoistic to pretend the West wasn't doing the exact same thing. Bunching them all together as "Communists" is doing exactly that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because that would be silly. Not all the nations fighting for the UN were strictly capitalists nor was their primary motivation the advancement of capitalism and they self-identified as the United Nations. All the nations fighting for "Belligerent Group 2" were communists, they were motivated by the advancement of communism and most importantly, these nations self-identified as communists. They were Communists, they called themselves Communists, they would have been proud to have been called Communists so why not just call them Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese were fighting for a buffer zone against American presence in Japan, not some idealistic "advancement of global communism", and the Soviets got involved because Mao wouldn't stop pestering Stalin about it, not because he particularly gave a crap one way or the other. There's no real need for labels for the belligerent groups in the first place; the situation is sufficiently complex that labeling them as "Communists" only serves to muddy the waters and reinforce false Cold War mythology. Their relationships should be explained in the text, not by one word in the infobox (which is where many readers look first, so we should take care to not oversimplify to the point of being wrong). Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That may have been one of their goals but the advancement of communism also was another and it was one they had no shyness about announcing. Most sources say Soviet involvement preceded Chinese intervention. There is some Cold War mythology floating around but the Cold War was very real, there was a world struggle against Communism and this was part of it. These nations fought under the banner of marxism and would have been proud to be called Communists, so lets call them Communists. - Schrandit (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviets were involved before China formally intervened, however, they did so at China's behest. I'm not saying the Cold War wasn't real, but that doesn't mean we need to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s. As far as the advancement of communism is concerned, Mao was the only one who really cared about it; he later denounced Stalin and the Soviets as lacking the will to lead the so-called "world-wide communist revolution". Stalin's only real motivation was to create a buffer against American forces in Japan, just as he did against the West in Europe. Again, trying to reduce this complex alliance as being "they're communists, and were doing so to advance global communism" is at best overly simplified, and at worst, just plain wrong. Our job is to educate readers, not propagate out-dated Cold War mythology. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And now we enter the realm of speculation; Mao loved Stalin, the sino-soviet split only occurred after Stalin's death, Stalin already had a buffer between him and bases in Japan. I'm not trying to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s, merely trying to look at the Cold War. The infobox serves as a simplification of the events, no one expects it to encompass the whole history and to say that an alliance of UN aligned nations fought an alliance of Communist nations is a fairly accurate simplification of the events. - Schrandit (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mao may have loved Stalin in the 30s, but tensions between the two were already brewing in the aftermath of WWII. Sino-Soviet relations actually improved to a slight degree following Stalin's death; it wasn't until Khrushchev formally rejected the concept of the inevitable armed conflict between capitalist and communist countries that the Sino-Soviet Split actually came about. None of that is directly relevant, in any case. In one of the seemingly endless discussions over the contents of the WWII infobox, someone said "The great vice of this place is that editors constantly try to pigeonhole and categorise, even when the material does not conform to a tidy schema. If you can't categorise accurately then don't mislead - let the article explain the complexities of the matter". That, essentially, is my point. Sticking a homogenizing label on an alliance only obscures what was actually going on. Yes, all three countries were communist societies, but that doesn't mean that that was what drove their decisions in participating in the war. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Framing the US for Use of Biological Weapons

I noticed that there isn't even a passing reference to this in the article. Perhaps something should be added? Here is a link to an online archive of cold war documents that shows China and North Korea conspired to frame the US: [6] 92.10.182.222 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something should be added since it is a major allegation and not just believed by random conspiracy theorists but by the biggest country in the world (china) and a number of western scholars. However, the documents you link do not say what you say they do, instead they say that certain members of the soviet bureaucracy conspired with some north Koreans to make a couple of false plague zones, but they did this after the initial outbreaks of plague had already started. Endicott and Hagerman have responded to this and shown that all it does is show that there were conflicts and shady dealings within the soviet government (at the time there was a fight between Beria and other sections) but it does not disprove other evidence they have gathered. The germ warfare article has a link to Endicott and Hagermans response defending their research. You should read their responses, and note that the writer of the main article recommended by the US government about this has himself changed his position from being sure that it was fabricated to the admitting the issue isn't settled. The soviet archives are now open but the US archives remain closed on this aspect.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman show multiple lines of corroborating evidence that is difficult to explain if the allegations are not true.

The United States denies this and argues "documents discovered in the Soviet archives in the 1990s reveal that the Soviets knew the charges were fraudulent as long ago as 1953." (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Nov/09-262154.html) Two of these documents, Explanatory note from Lt. Gen. V.N. Razuvaev to L.P. Beria from 13 and 18 April 1953, describe how Soviet advisors worked with the Korean Ministry of Health to create two false plague regions, sometime after 27 February 1952. The United States Goverment recommends the Weathersby article for the text of the documents and analysis and the Leitenberg article to accompany it.

Endicott and Hagerman have responded to arguments advanced by Weathersby, Lietenberg, and others: "The claim that two places were concocted to fool foreign visitors does not prove that all the sites of alleged biological warfare were also contrived. Our research in Chinese archives shows that the Chinese army in Korea and the Korean medical service serving with it identified occurrences of plague in 13 places during February and March 1952 as well as outbreaks of anthrax, encephalitis and other abnormal diseases."

US Government: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Nov/09-262154.html [7]

Endicott and Hagerman:

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/12SovietDocuments.htm [8]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoMiltonLeitenberg.htm [9]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoJohnvanCourtlandMoon.htm [10]

http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/ReplytoColCrane.htm [11] -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Suppression of People's Republic of Korea

The Peoples Republic of Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Korea), which the local Koreans had tried to set up as a government while overthrowing the japanese collaborators, should be mentioned by name and linked in the part near the beginning alongside the more vague "Many Korean people had organized politically prior to the arrival of American troops." This should again be mentioned by name in the part where "A second policy set forth by Hodge was to refuse to recognize the existing political organizations that had been established by the Korean people." It should say specifically that the de facto government of the People's Republic of Korea was suppressed.

If you search for "People's Republic of Korea" within wikipedia it currently links to "North Korea / Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and it seems the only way to find the page is to instead search for it in google. There should be a disambiguation on that page or it should be described within: the short lived attempt at a revolutionary republic which was part of the basis that developed into the DPRK in the north and in the south existed between the overthrow of japanese collaborators and the US restoration of collaborators. The suppression of the "people's republic" is a large part of the origin of the Cheju uprising/suppression.

It should say the People's Republic of Korea was the most popular and that the US favored the Korean Democratic Party, which consisted of large landowners and wealthy businessmen, while suppressing the PRK which had a broad base of support.

Here is an article from a Korean journal. It is covered in other sources though usually pro-US sources give it no mention. Given the bias of the US and ROK governments in helping suppress knowledge of the mass atrocities for over 50 years, we should view productions by them during that time as equivalent to "extremist sources" for the purposes of Korean war historiography, and similarly view their claims about "free elections" with the same suspicion that is used towards the North.

http://sociology.snu.ac.kr/isdpr/publication/journal/26-2/Hyesook%20Lee.pdf ``State formation and civil society under American occupation: the case of South Korea HS Lee - Korea Journal of Population and Development, 1997 - sociology.snu.ac.kr

USMGIK refers to the United States Military Government In Korea. KDP is the Korean Democratic Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"At first, there was Choson Konkuk Chunbi Wiwonhoe (Committee for the Preparation of Korea's Independence) led by Un-hyoung Yeo. Just before America arrived in Korea, it adopted the title of "the Korean People's Republic" (KPR) as a Korean government along with the People's Committees which were organized throughout the country (Hong 1985, pp. 57-103). Without foreign intervention, the KPR and the organizations it sponsored would have triumphed." In the meantime, the KDP, encouraged wiht the news that America would come to Korea, was organized. That party, which remained the strongest single rightist one, consisted of large landowners and wealthy businessmen (Sim 1982)." p. 7-8

"With the support of these bureaucrats in the USMGIK, the KDP elevated itself from a weak political group to the dominant party, helping the USMGIK suppress its political rival, the KPR. The KPR was forced to transform from a de facto Korean government into several political parties and finally to abolish itself. "p.8

"The process of grasping power for the KDP and Rhee was at the same time the process of exclusion for other political groups. In alliance with the USMGIK, the KDP and Rhee became the ruling party, whereas many other groups such as peasants, workers, leftist groups and also some nationalists were oppressed and excluded."p.9

"The main tools of USMGIK in controlling Korean society were the coercive resources such as police and military forces. The important function of the Korean National Police (KNP) was a political one, and the main reason that the USMGIK retained the Japanese colonial police system and its Korean personnel was to fight against the KPR and the People's Committees, considering them as communist forces."10-11

"Especially, in the fall of 1946, the Korean peasants and workers sought to reverse the effects of a year of American occupation, and their uprisings swept throughout the whole southern Korean provinces for three months. The people's opposition to the USMGIK was strongest in the Kyeongsang and Cholla provinces, which had powerful People's Commitees. Through the uprising the Koreans expressed their strong discontent over American rule, and brought into focus the failures of the USMGIK's political and economic policies (Chung 1988)... However, as a result of the USMGIK's violent suppression of the uprising, the People's Committees and the organizations associated with them were almost totally destroyed, and the reactionary Korean groups, particularly the KNP, became the dominant forces in the provinces."13

"Of course, the USMGIK introduced a procedure of democracy on the surface to Koreans... if democracy means, at the least, that the government is supported by the majority of the people, and that the people can freely participate in political activities and express their opinions, and be treated equally by the laws, there was much limitation. We have seen how strongly the majority of Koreans opposed the USMGIK through the general strikes and the October (Chung 1988) and Cheju uprisings."(my emphasis)p14

-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

"Free Elections" (music to mugabe's ears)

"Free Elections" in the opening paragraph is ridiculous. The US and ROK may spin it that way, but the fact is the elections in Rhee's Korea were less free than in Mugabe's Zimbabwe of today. For example, Rhee threatened to have people's food ration cards away if they voted against him, and there were frequent arrests or executions of political opponents. South Korean elections at the time were probably no more free than elections in the North.

Such claims reach the heights of absurdity, and would be like if Britain occupied the north of the US during the war of 1812 and suppressed all opposition, then ran elections where only Tories and a couple of other pro british parties run and claims they are "free elections". This cold war propaganda is completely inappropriate to have stated as if it is the truth, though because it has been repeated so much it would be appropriate to mention in the article that the US and ROK claimed "free elections" as a discredited fringe theory.

"Failing to strengthen their case in the elections" This assumes they even tried to compete in the elections, or that it would have been possible to. No leftist parties ran in the South Korean elections, which were widely considered rigged because left wing groups were being violently suppressed and because of the associated threats to people who vote the wrong way, and also because the majority of South Korea opposed separate elections even being held. The fact is the leftists didn't attempt to "strengthen their case" in the South Korean elections and anyone trying to would just have been executed, imprisoned, or force recruited into the bodo league/NGL "rehabilitation" program and mass executed later, so laying low and trying guerilla organization was probably the obvious strategy for them. This explains how even after elections, the Rhee regime had "little public support".

WP article currently says: "The Americans did not want a communist government in South Korea so they called for elections in all of Korea. Since the population of the South was double that of the North, the Soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose the election."

Instead, it should say that the soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose an election where the south was excluding and violently suppressing leftist parties, who were the majority at the time. Also it should say that the Americans feared that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, which is why they suppressed leftist groups while using the phrase "free elections" as propaganda. In fact, the Soviets thought that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, and so did the Americans, especially once the war started and the US bombed every city and killed mass civilians etc. The soviets were boycotting the UN in general and not free elections per se, but they were boycotting "free elections" where the UN would lie and say it was fair despite widespread suppression of the left and admissions in their own reports that said people were threatened with taking away their food rations if they voted the wrong way.

Some Myths about June 1950 Robert R. Simmons The China Quarterly, No. 54 (Apr. - Jun., 1973), pp. 354-361 http://www.jstor.org/stable/652006?seq=3 [12] Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies "[t]he Syngman Rhee regime enjoyed little public support" p 356

I.F. Stone. The Hidden History of the Korean War. Monthly Review Press. 1971

The first part of this quotation refers to the soviet peace/election mediation offer in 1950, and the second part relates to the UN commissions on the two previous "free elections".

"The fear that the Communists would win such elections was reflected in a speech made by Warren Austin at Lake Sucess on August 17 [1950], which "revealed that the United States wants them [the elections] to be held on the basis that the Republic of Korea's jurisdiction would be extended over North Korea automatically."... If its jurisdiction were automatically extended over the North, it would supervise the elections. Already two United Nations Commissions had reflected unfavorably on the way the Syngman Rhee regime handled elections and manhandled political opponents; threats to confiscate rice ration cards were noted as one of the milder forms of coercion by the United Nations Temporary Commission which observed the elections establishing the Rhee regime.

""The difficulty," the New York Times correspondent at Lake Success explained, "is that there is a strong probability of an over-all Communist majority if the elections were held before the communization of North Korea had been undone, and before a UN reconstruction program had assuaged the bitterness of North and South Korea against the destruction of their homes during their liberation by UN forces. In that case communism would win by an election what it failed to obtain by an invasion." p117-118

Stone's citations for these are:

United Nations Document A/Ac 19/80, p.117: Cited by George M McCune, Korea Today, p.228.

New York Times August 24, 1950 -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Alleged war crimes of US in North Korea

North Korea is apparently claiming that the United States military massacred numerous townspeople at a place called Sinchon Ri, where they built a museum to back up their claim [13] ... However, as North Korea is apparently a backwards country, I haven't been able to find an official website, the most informative site being on Geocities. Anyone have more info on what exactly occurred at Sinchon Ri? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue, but geocities isn't a reliable source. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Shrugs) well, let's face it, North Korea isn't exactly the most accessible country in the world. All the same, this lack of reliability is why I didn't log-in and put it in the article. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That hardly seems to be a reliable source. It's incredibly POV (labeling American forces as "imperialist aggressors" and referring to Kim il Sung as "the great leader"). It refers to the Pyongyang International Tribunal on US Crimes in Korea, which appears to be a kangaroo court conducted by the North Koreans. I wouldn't give it a shred of credibility, nor would I give it mention in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This article from a peer review journal has information on the Sincheon massacre. It says that while North Korea has believed that the massacre was carried out by US soldiers, evidence now shows that it was carried out mainly by South Koreans: a right-wing civilian security police and a youth group.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[14]

Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[15]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544

"“Counter-insurgency” atrocities in North Korean territory were also terrible. When ROK police and rightist youth groups crossed over the 38th parallel following the US military, they found many “communists” and collaborators active there. The Sinchon massacre (a county located in southern North Korea) was a typical case. North Korea has long argued that American troops killed 35,380 civilians in Sinchon, but a newly released document disclosed that it was mainly the right-wing civilian security police and a youth group that were responsible for killing their neighbors"

The footnote to this says: "Some reporters argued that American CIC ordered the massacre, but it is not verified (Hangeore 21, April 25, 2002)." -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Here is the DPRK government's website of the US Crimes Sinchon-Ri Museum. http://www.korea-dpr.com/users/thai/Us.htm -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writers 4 minutes ago

There is more news out there today on the massacres ...Yahoo's World News Page - but it is an AP report. Credible.

DAEJEON, South Korea - Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.84.109.135 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the article the above editor is referring: [16]. It does not, however, back up what the initial post in this thread was talking about; the Yahoo article is about South Korean military and police forces committing mass slaughters, not American forces doing so. The article at the moment mentions the mass executions, but is without a source for the statement. This news article should be just fine, as it's from AP. Parsecboy (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The ABC version found here [17], while not alleging participation, states that US military officers were "sometimes present", and displays photographs taken by a US Army major now declassified from the US National Archives. The ABC article further claims that high-level US diplomats and officers (including MacArthur) knew of the massacres and were "ambivalent". 99.231.116.17 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That much is already stated in the article; since the ABC article is the same AP article, it can't be another source, but it does have photos, so it might be the better article to use as the source. The photos are unfortunately pretty low resolution, but at the same time, the section on war crimes already has enough pictures, so it's not a major concern. Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article should be more blunt that US commanders were not only present, but that they were in charge of South Korea's military at the time. For example, Fox News version of the AP article states:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May19/0,4670,KoreaMassExecutions,00.html

"[O]verall commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur viewed the executions as a Korean "internal matter," even though he controlled South Korea's military."

The value of this phrasing is it communicates the fact that MacArthur was responsible as the military commander, rather than allowing someone to interpret that ROK might have had a separate military command he had no control over. The article does at one point mention MacArthur is commander of the UN forces, though that is higher up in the part about the details of the military conflict, which many people might not read who are interested in the war crimes aspect.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Also it should specifically refer to these massacres from the AP article as the "bodo league massacres" or "NGL (national guidance league) massacres" with a link to the wikipedia page on the subject. The article should also be changed to saying "tens of thousands, and according to one guy 100000", to instead say a hundred thousand, and possibly two or three times that amount, just for the Bodo League massacres. It should also say that the US and ROK have suppressed this story for over 50 years.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[18]

Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[19]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

This same Kim Dong Choon, author of the above mentioned Journal of Genocide Research article, is probably the same Kim Dong Choon that is the main source quoted in the recent AP articles who is a member of the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission and is the leads that commission's subcommittee on "mass civilian sacrifice". -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Inaccurate legacy

"The war eventually led to a strengthening of alliances in the Western bloc and the splitting of Communist China from the Soviet bloc." China did not split from the soviet bloc over the Korean War. They split because of a combination of Khruschev's speech against aspects of stalinism, the withdrawal of Soviet advisors after the debacle of Mao's Great Leap Forward, and Krushchev's refusal to support China in the border war with Nehru's India. I would be interested in hearing the chain of reasoning used to support the idea that it was really the Korean War where they were all cooperating that caused them to split and not those other events of extreme friction. But for now you should probably just take that out as it is far fetched, goes against most of the histories, has no source, links to an article that says nothing about it, and without additional support it is a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

You are correct, I've removed the sentence in question. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

US/UN POV

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that all of the discussion of combat operations are from a US/UN perspective. Indeed, there isn't a single other unit identified by number (e.g., the Chinese 15th Army). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed previously, one old discussion can be found here. The main problem is the lack of reliable sources from Chinese or North Korean perspectives. If you've got the sources, by all means, add them to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are several books on the matter. I'll have to dig them out of my library. In the meantime, there's this:

The mainly Korean 164th and 166th Divisions of the PLA’s Fourth Field Army were sent into North Korea in July 1949, according to Chen Jian (The Sino Soviet Alliance and China’s Entry into the Korean War [Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington: April 2002), Cold War International History Project, Working Paper No. 1., p. 15]), and organized into the Korean People’s Army’s 7th Division.(p. 24) Source: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAE7.pdf DOR (HK) (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I guess we just had to wait for the right person with the right books :) I'm a little busy at the moment, end of the quarter; exams, papers, and all that. So the best help I can offer is copyediting and such when I check my watchlist during breaks from the books. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Games

Some trusted user might wanna add Crysis to the "Games"-section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakkour (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercenaries: Playground Of Destruction did not feature the Korean war as it's backdrop, rather, the game was set in a post-modern era wherein N. Korea was violently overthrown and sent to Overtake S. Korea. The gist of this post is that the game was set in an alternate reality, NOT the korean war. AiRsTrIkE1 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Parsecboy (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

More US and Republic of Korea War Crimes

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/1462352042000320592[20] Dong Choon Kim. Forgotten war, forgotten massacres—the Korean War (1950-1953) as licensed mass killings. Journal of Genocide Research(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713431069~db=all[21]), Volume 6, Issue 4 2004 , pages 523 - 544 I am copying more quotations from this journal so that if you don't have journal access you can still see these relevant parts.

Although it may be futile to compare the number of the total victims killed by US, ROK and North Korean commands, it seems certain that the number of unarmed civilians killed under ROK and US command overwhelms those killed at the hands of North Korean command, contrary to the public knowledge about the Korean War atrocities.

Though the killings committed by both sides are often sometimes dismissed with a reference to their being wartime massacres, what makes the cases by ROK authorities different from those by the North Korean's is the character of the mass killings: they were aimed at unarmed civilians.

First, the ROK initiated the mass killings. ROK troops and police had already killed about 100,000 civilians before the outbreak of full-scale war. The executions of the “suspected communists” after the war were nothing but the extension of the Cheju and Yosun massacres of 1948 at the national level. The execution of NGL members was quite predictable when we recall Rhee's “rooting out” policy and white terror against the guerillas and his political opponents before 1950.

Second, the command to execute “suspected communists” almost came from top government officials or from Rhee himself, while violence against rightists and their family members came mainly at the hands of local communists who were not under control of the top. North Korea's Kim Il Sung strongly emphasized the prohibition against civilian killings, which seemed quite natural because the NKPA (North Korean People's Army), as a revolutionary army, had to win the hearts and minds of the South Korean people. Most eyewitnesses of the violence during the war cautiously admit the fact that the NKPA did not kill ordinary people, although local leftists arbitrarily harassed and killed innocent people.

Third, ROK troops and police often killed people without distinguishing the innocent, whether children, women or the elderly, from the enemy, while the NKPA primarily killed adults or family members of rightists on their retreat back to the north. The NKPA also killed many innocent children and women among the rightist family members once the war began, but ROK troops had already burned the villages and killed residents indiscriminately in Cheju, Yosu, Munkyung, and Yeongdug before the full-scale war had broken out. During the war, they repeated the same type of massacres in Guchang, Sanchung, Namwon, Kochang, and Hampyung, all in the name of “cleansing” guerilla areas.

The intention of the rightists was the cleansing of the “red-virus” looming in South Korea and they treated all residents around the mountainous areas, including children, women, and the elderly as potential “traitors” who had no right to live under the South Korean regime. This quasi-racist ideology of anticommunism, which often appeared in the genocidal policies of the rightists, created and justified mass killings against “suspicious civilians.” The illegal detaining and execution of the “suspected communists” may have inevitably occurred within the chaos of the emergency situations of warfare. However, these incidents took place under the official justification of the National Security Law and the Martial Law, both of which were enacted originally by imperial Japan and were then used again by the newly born “liberal” South Korean government, even after the imperialist rule ended.

It has been known that “saturation bombing” by American air forces and naval bombardment destroyed some North Korean cities like Wonsan and Pyangang, leaving them almost completely in rubble with no more than a few buildings standing. As British journalist Reginald Thompson testified, civilians died in the rubble and ashes of their homes. Alan Winnington, a correspondent for the British Daily Worker, when he saw how thousands of tons of bombs had obliterated towns and resulted in thousands of civilian casualties testified that “it was far worse than the worst the Nazis ever did.”24 According to the witnesses, US air and ground forces shot at children, women, and aged people who were easily distinguishable as unarmed civilians. North Korean authorities have long accused American troops of “criminal acts” before and after the outbreak of the Korean War.25 They maintained that the US army killed more than a million innocent civilians by bombing, shooting, and the use of napalm or chemical weapons.26 While it must be acknowledged that the North has politically exploited such claims, the facts on the ground force us to not discount their veracity. For example, though the No Gun Ri incident was reported to the world through the AP's report in 1999, this incident was first reported by North Korean newspapers and officially used as good materials for propaganda with other numerable cases.

Another factor that may have precipitated these mass killings by American troops may be related to the combination of deep racial prejudices of US soldiers on one hand and the relative isolation of the incidents on the other. With total ignorance of Asia, young soldiers regarded Koreans (and Chinese) as “people without history.” They usually called Koreans “gooks,” a term used during World War II for Pacific Islanders.28 The fact that many Korean women in the villages were often raped in front of their husbands and parents has not been a secret among those who experienced the Korean War.29 It was known that several women were raped before being shot at No Gun Ri. Some eyewitnesses say that US soldiers played with their lives like boys sadistically playing with flies.30 On the other hand, the “total isolation” of the Korean situation from the Western public; McCarthyism also emboldened US commanders to issue indiscriminate commands which would invariably bring mass death upon innocent citizens. With McCarthyism at its peak, US authorities tightly controlled the Western media and nobody could raise doubts as to the legitimacy of the US's military intervention or the US's responsibility for civilian deaths. Unlike other cases of genocide before and after the Korean War, it was not just international indifference but the US's unilateral power in the midst of the Cold War that constituted a condition in which mass killings were both probable and politically defendable.

By any standard, these indiscriminate bombings, strafings, and shooting of defenseless civilians may be ranked as massacres at least, or possibly even genocidal at worst.

Of critical importance, however, is the fact that the US soldiers killed civilian refugees lacking even a modicum of self-defense, including women and children, even when no North Korean soldiers or grass-root guerilla forces threatened them.

In September 1950, US troops under MacArthur's command landed at Inchon, a harbor city located behind enemy lines of combat. The North Korean People's Army (NKPA) was forced to quickly retreat from South Korean territory, but those North Korean forces denied access to retreat were encircled by US and South Korean troops. These remaining NKPA soldiers then engaged in guerilla warfare, blurring the difference between the military and civilians. As the battle lines of the Korean War cut across cities and towns, the combat developed into a typical “peoples' war.” Around 4 October 1950, the ROK Army, also under the command of MacArthur, launched massive rooting out operations against “bandits” dispersed around the Jiri Mountain (Jirisan) region of southern South Korea. As the war transformed into guerilla warfare, ROK commanders viewed the inhabitants of that region as “potential traitors” serving the enemy.

The mass killings committed by ROK soldiers in “cleansing” areas in which there was reported “enemy” activity were brutal and devastating. One of the most widely known massacres that ROK soldiers committed was the Guchang incident in February 1951. The ROK Army's Eleventh Division, which performed the mission of searching for and exterminating the remaining guerrillas active in the mountainous areas around Jirisan, were responsible for that incident. The commander of the Eleventh division was Choi Duk Sin, who had originally devised this concept of operations serving under Chinese General Chang Kei Shek's corps. Choi's troops killed unarmed civilians indiscriminately because they were believed to serve the guerrillas and refused orders to evacuate. In the end, several thousand civilians, including babies, women, and elderly, were killed during the operations named “Keeping the Position by Cleansing the Fields (hellip)”. That operation had been also been labeled the “three-cleanse-all” operations (kill-all, burn-all, loot-all), after tactics which had been developed by Japanese imperial forces fighting against anti-Japanese leftist rebels in China.

The Guchang incident, however, turned out to be a unique case in that it became officially recognized among the numerous undocumented mass killings at that juncture. This status is due to the fact that a South Korean lawmaker who represented that region “spoke out” about the massacres to the foreign wartime reporters who were present shortly after their occurrence. Similar mass killings committed by the same division at villages across North and South Cholla near Guchang, such as Namwon, Sunchang, Kochang, Imsil, and Hampyung, have not yet been fully revealed or publicized. In some regions, assaulted villages were abandoned and deserted as most of the inhabitants were killed, the survivors having fled. From the fall of 1950 to the spring of 1951, we can roughly guess that about 10,000 civilians may have been killed by South Korean soldiers in the mission of cleansing the base of left-wing guerrillas.34 Furthermore, remaining family members of the victims were treated as “reds” and could not enjoy full citizenship during the last half century under the anticommunist political atmosphere dominated by extreme rightists and the military elite. More recent South Korean governments have also stubbornly denied that ROK Army and police killed so many innocent people.

So here are a couple of things that the article needs to include for accuracy. Nos. 1-4 refer to the above quotations from the Journal of Genocide Research article.

1. For the US mass killing of Korean civilian refugees, "neutralize" is too tame a quote, when the AP articles that broke the story had the quote "kill them all" ordered from US command. Also notice that there are 3 pictures in the "War Crimes" section, with two of them being pictures of people killed by the north, and the one that is a picture of a document showing US wrongdoing has a caveat while the other two do not. I don't have any specific recommendations for changing the photographs to have more balance, but do you see what I am referring to in terms of how balanced it appears? Finding ways to balance things like that may be part of the road to improving the grade of the article. Especially since the US and ROK have done much higher scale of atrocities against civilians than the north during the war, the opposite emphasis would be more in tune with a NPOV.

2. The racism among US soldiers, their use of the term "gook" and rapes of Koreans in front of their families.

3. Civilian bombing by the US is not mentioned as a crime against civilians. It is in the world war 2 article, and should be here also.

4. That most killings of civilian by pro North forces were done by irregular groups acting against the orders of the North Korean government, while most killings of civilians by the South were done on orders from the top South Korean and US commands.

5. The bombing of dikes to destroy rice production and intentionally cause starvation by the US is not mentioned. This was viewed as a war crime in the Nuremburg trials, and deserves a mention here. Chomsky's book "Understanding Power" has citations for this in footnotes #63 and #64 in chapter 8, including official US air force documents describing it from Robert Frank Futrell, The United States Air Force in Korea, 1950-53 (Revised Edition), Washington: United States Air Force, Office of Air Force History, 1983., Quarterly Review Staff Study, "The Attack on the Irrigation Dams in North Korea," Air University Quarterly Review (Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama), Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 1953-54, pp. 40-61., and a book by Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, Korea: The Unknown War, New York: Viking, 1988. Unless you have access to these originals, just cite Chomsky, Schoeffel, and Mitchell and say they refers to these.

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (Paperback) by Noam Chomsky (Author), John Schoeffel (Editor), Peter Mitchell (Author) http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter8.htm [22]

6. Alleged US Germ warfare. This is a major charge, and is believed by the worlds biggest country (China). The research of Endicott and Hagerman should be mentioned, along with the US government's response and their reply. The wikipedia page on germ warfare already has an ok two sentence treatment of these allegations that you could copy or use as a model. -(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

As for the Germ warfare allegations, since the opening of the Soviet archives, that's been proven to be a hoax, see:1. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of this evidence from the Soviet archives, and it does not prove that the germ warfare allegations are a hoax. Instead it proves that elements of the stalinist bureaucracy conspired to create two false plague regions sometime after the initial outbreaks. This could be akin to corrupt police officers doing additional framing work on someone who may or may not be guilty to bolster their chance of prosecution. See the responses by the researchers Endicott and Hagerman, linked to in the earlier "framing the US for use of biological weapons". We should be trying to quote better sources to disprove worse ones, and since up there I posted a link to the US government which has links to two US government recommended essays by historians, and links to the responses by other historians, this US news article that references those historians is definitely a lesser source. Please review Endicott and Hagermans responses defending their research in light of the soviet archive evidence. Note that one of the writers of the essays the US government recommended, Leitenberg, has softened his initial conclusions and now says that questions about it remain open.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

I would also question the reliability and neutrality of any source that states "it was far worse than the worst the Nazis ever did." Surely, no legitimate, NPOV historian could possibly compare even the alleged figure of 1 million Korean civilians killed with the 12 million victims of the Holocaust, not to mention the 30+ million deaths directly attributable to Nazi aggression. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The author of the peer review journal article is not saying what you say he is saying, and you are correct that no real historian would say this. Instead, he is quoting the reactions on the ground from a communist who said this, not saying it himself, notice the quotation marks. The purpose of quoting this particular British correspondent from the Daily Worker is that he was one of the only people to report on this at the time, and was denounced as a liar for reporting it. He is talking about the concentrated civilian bombing he witnessed in Korea, and probably referring not to the Holocaust in Europe but to the Blitz he and his fellow citizens experienced in Britain, which was much less concentrated and killed maybe 40 thousand. We must remember that the western governments didn't publicize full knowledge of the Holocaust immediately after the war or for some years after. The recent AP articles also cover and vindicate this Daily Worker report. The fact is biased sources are part of the documentary evidence, though to be properly used they must be reviewed by historians. In addition, the author of the peer review journal article that you are doubting is the main source for the recent AP articles, and he works for the South Korean government on their Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The AP and South Korean government seem to consider him an authority. I wouldn't suggest the quotation of the opinion comparing to the nazis should be added to the article. Instead, the facts should be added. Please review.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Proof it is the same Kim Dong Choon and not just another guy with the same name: another article by him, which references a past article by him that is also referenced in the Journal of Genocide Research article: ::http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?BACKFLAG=Y&VOLUMENO=42&BOOKNUM=3&PAPERNUM=3&SEASON=Autumn&YEAR=2002

"Kim Dong Choon (Kim, Dong-chun) is Associate Professor in the Division of Social Science at SungKongHoe University. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Seoul National University."

From the official South Korean Government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission page:

http://www.jinsil.go.kr/English/Commission/introduction.asp

Standing Commissioner Kim, Dong-Choon

Associate professor, Sungkonghoe University

Human Rights & Pease Center

Director, Sungkonghoe University

Policy President, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

There is no reason his article should not be taken as a good source, as it is in a peer review journal and he is a PhD employed by the South Korean government, and seeing as he was quoted as the main source in the recent AP articles, he seems to almost be the preeminent source on this aspect of the war. If you think his conclusions are incorrect, you will need to bring up another academic source of similar stature that debates these specific charges, and even then you cannot exclude his article as it is either the major viewpoint or a highly significant minority viewpoint. ::WP:Reliable_sources: "Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist".-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

The assertion that North Korean irregulars committed war crimes against orders is upsurd, it's totally point of view and an easy google search of north korean war crimes will say diffrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.25.216 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can find lots of information about crimes by North Korea against POWs, but you are going to have to give an exact source for your claim relating to crimes against unarmed combatants, as you are disagreeing with one of the main experts employed by the government of South Korea, a government that has no reason to cover up for North Korea.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Joseph Stalin

Joseph Stalin - Soviet Force Comander during KW? You must be joking. Soviet forces present were air and AA units plus engineers and vetran officers educating local troops. They did not have a single "head" during the war, afaik, but as the most important combat role of Soviets were in air fights, their air unit commander should be named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montezubba (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. estimate of PRC casualties

I dont think that the +400,000 dead "estimate" is a good source. The U.S. was on the retreat so how can they count the dead bodies of the killed Chinese? [Just like in Vietnam, the U.S. didnt have a good estimate of killed Vietcong nor Vietminh. The famous words "If he's dead and Vietnamese, he's VC".] Yes, the U.S. bombed Chinese positions but the Pentagon failed to realize that the Chinese used underground tunnels much like the ones use by the VC in Vietnam. So the Pentagon came up with an equation, something like "1 bomb dropped = 5 dead enemies". If the U.S. estimate is true then every Chinese soldier sent to Korea would be a casualty, since the entire PLA was about 3 million men and they couldnt send everyone to Korea (only 700,000 of constant rotation).

im just saying the estimate may be some what too ridiculous to be reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.102.151 (talk • contribs)

Not this again. Please review the ridiculously long discussion (over 178kb) in the archives here. As for your claims about military strength, China's PLA had 5 million regulars in 1950, and claimed a militia of another 5.5 million. The 5 million regulars were reduced to 2.8 million only by 1953, when the war was largely over. Therefore, the casualty figure is quite plausible. From my understanding, the PVA only started digging the complex tunnels during the stalemate portion of the war; most casualties undoubtedly took place during battles of 1950-51. As for your allegation about the Pentagon using some arbitrary formular, please provide a source that that actually happened. Parsecboy (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that the reduction in size of the PLA in the early 50's has anything to do with casualties in Korea, as casualties can easily be replaced, if deemed necessary, and as long as the manpower is there, an army can maintain its size regardless of the casualty, and since there were no catastrophic events that could lead to large casualties that can not be replaced, the reduction in the number of men in the PLA can only be the result of conscious downsizing. As to the capabilities of the PVA, You can read chapter two of the book Historical Perspective on Light Infantry by Scott R. McMichael, published by the US Command and General Staff College http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/historic/hist_c2_pt1.pdf --58.106.21.53 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the strength of the PLA being decreased partially by casualties sustained in Korea (although it is an uncontestable fact; there were casualties in Korea, and they weren't replaced, you can't argue with that much). The statement that the PLA numbered about 3 million (and therefore couldn't have sustained the number of casualties alleged by the US govt.) isn't relevant, because in 1950, the number of soldiers in the PLA was well over 5 million (if you only count the regulars), and over 10 million in total. And, as you have stated, casualties can always be replaced if the manpower is available, and if any country has a seemingly endless supply of manpower, it's China. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US forces seem to always severely over estimate the Chinese numbers and casualties during the war, a very good example would be the second battle of the hook from 26th to 28th October 1952, the first marine division claimed that over a thousand Chinese were killed and wounded in the two days of fighting, however, although there was no casualty figure from the Chinese for that one battle, the record does show that a total of 3 rifle companies participated in the fighting. While in the battles for Vegas and Reno hills starting on 26th of March 1953, the Chinese attacked the two hills on the evening of the 26th, 5th regiment, 1st Marine division claimed that it was attacked by the entire Chinese 358 regiment of 3500 men, however, if you checked the division history of the Chinese 120 rifle division, only two companies, 1st and 8th companies of 358 regiment actually participated in the attack.--58.106.21.53 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the long discussion and it got nowhere. Back on topic, obviously I cannot provide a source for the "formula" since your government would want to save face and not tell the public about some of the bullshit "estimations calculations", but I did find some examples of the U.S.'s policies in exaggerating enemy dead like "If he's dead and Vietnamese, he's VC"; link [23]

A note on the alleged "human waves tactics". By what definition do you go by when saying "human waves tactics"? Do you mean by infantry charges? If that's the case then didn't every country use "human waves tactics"? Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Stalingrad, Konigsburg, Iwo Jima, Gettysburg; I could go on for a really long time. So don't be suprised of "human waves tactics" since everyone used them when needed. You make the assumption, or by reading your "accurate" sources, that the PLA used "human waves tactics" all the time; I tell you now, that, is a false accusation by the U.S. to explain the defeats suffered by her military to an "inferior" race. This is an ok website, link[24]

By the way when I read the link I found that you're very ignorant of your own country's history, which you said that communists were the ones that distorts history and the supposed western sources is so uncorruptable that everything they utter is regarded as absolute "fact(s)". May I suggest you read some "true" U.S. history books once in a while, for example, "A People's History" by Howard Zinn; very good book by the way. Another link just for the hell of it, link[25]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.102.151 (talk • contribs)

No, the Chinese did use massed infantry attacks. When an opponent, on the defensive, has overwhelming advantages in firepower, equipment, technology, etc., the only way it can be defeated is through superiority in numbers. You state that massed infantry attacks occurred in the past; Pickett's Charge is a classic example of this, where massed infantry in fact did break a defensive line supported by masses of artillery, despite taking murderous casualties. That this has happened in the past quite frequently doesn't mean the Chinese didn't do it, or anything of the sort. That the Chinese attacked positions from multiple sides and using infiltration tactics doesn't negate the fact that these assaults were done with lightly-armed infantry against machine guns, artillery, and tanks. Again, human wave attacks against dug in defenders with overwhelming superiority in firepower sometimes results in victory for the attacker, but it also always results in the attacker suffering horrendous casualties.

Regardless of all of this, even if the Pentagon figures are exaggerated, remember that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The figure is prominently labeled as being an American estimate and is properly sourced. There is no legitimate argument to remove it, because it satisfies the requirements for the core policy cited above. There is therefore no real need to continue this discussion. Also, the reliability of the sources you provided is questionable; it's over 10 years old, and still has the approx 800k number for South Korean casualties, which has since been revised.

Lastly, please do not call me (or anyone else, for that matter) ignorant; you don't know me, nor do you know what I do and do not know. It also borders on incivility. Communist countries are well known for distorting history when it suits them. Read Lenin's Tomb, a great book that in part describes Soviet attempts to rewrite history in their own archives. As for Zinn's book, it has been criticized as being too simplistic and in some cases, innacurate. Did I ever state that Western sources are perfect? No, I don't believe I did. As a student of history, I am well aware that historical works are often blurred by a lack of full information, or biased in a nationalistic fashion, either intentionally or not. Regardless of this, the US has a better track record than many countries; many Japanese think they attacked Pearl Harbor because the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for god's sake. What I did say was that the American estimate of American casualties is probably 99% correct, and has been vetted by numerous independent scholars, while the Chinese estimate of Chinese casualties has not. On their own website, it states the figure is incomplete and a work in progress. So please don't put words in my mouth. Parsecboy (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

South Korean casualties

Current figures in the article are 58,127 combat deaths and 175,743 wounded, but without any source. Here they say about a lot more casualties (137,899 dead etc), but still not complete data - without para-militia and police. Why the difference is so big? And what figures are correct? 195.248.189.182 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of Civilians Compared to Total Population

I can't edit this page and was redirected here. I couldn't believe that there seemed to be no estimate or range of estimates on civilian casualties and/or total casualties. Here is what I found, please post it in article if you believe it might improve it.

The article I read provides the following information:

While accurate numbers for deaths are imprecise, various sources approximate the war's South Korean civilian casualties -- dead, wounded and missing -- at about one million people. North Korean civilian casualties were perhaps twice that, many of them as a result of the U.N. bombing campaign. The numbers vary, but it's probably safe to say that there were somewhere between three and four million Korean civilian casualties; this at a time when the total population was some 30-40 million people! And civilians died at a ghastly rate in Korea.

Historian Bruce Cumings, in a 1994 article in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, notes that civilian casualty rates in the Korean War were nearly 70 percent of total casualties, compared to about 40 percent in World War II.

According to a June 20, 2000 article in the Korea Herald: "The war left about 5 million people dead, wounded or missing, more than half of them civilians. It also left more than 10 million people separated from their families, 300,000 war widows and 100,000 war orphans."

References: 50 Years And Counting The Impact of the Korean War on the People of the Peninsula May 2002 by Phil de Haan Johnatmls (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

reference link: www.calvin.edu/news/2001-02/korea.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnatmls (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Intervention

The Chinese People's Government had complained to the United Nations about United States aggression against the province of Taiwan and violations of its airspace by the United States Air Force prior to the entry by Chinese volunteers in Korea. The current version of this article disingenuously omits United States acts of war against China. Nierva (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you try to find more/better sources on that? - Schrandit (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Page picture

I find the compilation of prominent pictures to portray the Korean War creative and conforming to what seems like an unwritten agreement to establish pictures for all major wars on Wikipedia as rectangular compilations.

I would however, like to file a complaint for the current Korean War picture. On the bottom left of the picture, a photo of Chinese soldiers being welcomed home is shown as part of the compilation. I find this disturbing and a dishonor to the UN and Korean Veterans of the war. The Korean War was a conflict between the Korean people. No matter how significant an impact the Chinese invasion of the peninsula may have been to the outcome of the war, their worth as a cultural and historical tie to the Korean War is little to none. The Chinese presence also caused a negative outcome of the war - their role in the Korean War is despicable to the US and UN and a representation of the PRC on the cover picture of the Wikipedia Korean War article is undeserving and ridiculous. Their sacrifice for another man's war for an evil cause does not stir any pity or respect in me for their veterans. If there needs be a portrayal of an army, either an American or ROK soldier should be poignantly represented as part of the main picture, for it is their total and honorable sacrifice that half the peninsula was saved from communism.

To the author of the picture, it is certainly no affront to your work - it is one of the most efficient ways to summarize the article through pictures. However my suggestion is more than just advice. I would greatly appreciate my suggestion to be taken seriously and in my opinion, should certainly be carried out. If the author is unavailable or declines to answer my suggestion, I will change it myself.

It may sound like a minor complaint but it is far from minor. It is a matter of giving equal attention to the rightful and deserving armed servicemen and women of the Korean conflict. Oyo321 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the editor who compiled the montage. I'm afraid your suggestion isn't viable, in consideration of relevant policies like WP:NPOV. As a neutral encyclopedia, we have as much of a duty to represent the Chinese and North Korean side of the conflict as we do the American, South Korean, and the rest of the UN forces. I understand your feelings in regard to the conflict, but we cannot allow our personal views of any topic to obscure or skew the information presented. Truth be told, had there been more free images of the Chinese/DPRK side, I would have included them, perhaps in the same format (i.e., replacing one of the existing images) or in a 6-frame montage, similar to the one for the WWII article. For example, I had originally searched for a photograph of a Soviet MiG, but couldn't find any that were suitably licensed.

Of course, if you can find better free images, or wish to use different ones, I encourage you to create your own montage, and we can discuss which better represents the war. I only ask that you upload it under a different file name, so that you don't overwrite the existing montage. Thanks for your comments on the photo montage. I look forward to seeing a different version, if you are inclined to make one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Deletions of text by Shcrandit are not justified. Schrandit's personal attacks accusing editors of "working for the Chinese Government" cast serious doubt on his good faith.

Concering the American invasion of Korea and UN activity, the fact is that President Truman had already ordered an invasion of Kroea before the the UN Security Council passed Resolution 83 "recommending" states to assist southern Korea. The U.S. then went to the Security Council in an attempt to legitimize its campaign. This is made clear in the papers by Leo Gross and F.B. Schick as well as in the statement to the United Nations by the the Russian deputy foreign minister Gromyko.

It is not wise to disregard reports from China about U.S. violations of Chinese airspace, especially when considering that the U.S. regime had officially acknowledged these facts. Similarly, to delete allegations of war crimes by the United States against prisoners of war belonging to the Korean People's Army violates Wikipedia guidelines concerning the maintenance of a neutral point of view. To cite solely U.S. allegations while at the same time omitting analagous ones from the other side is propagandistic. No responsible scholar would disregard literature on the Korean War published in China and the Korean People's Republic. Nierva (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• One would quite certainly disregard propaganda nonsense from the Korean Central News Agency. (Though it can be kinda fun to read through their releases; it almost seems like self-parody.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your evaluation of the media in the DPRK is meaningless. The suggestion that sources published in Korea are to be dismissed is imposssible to reconcile with how the Western media regularly cites the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) when reporting on Korea. Case in point,this article by Reuters quotes the KCNA , to say nothing of many other Wikipedia articles that quote Korean sources. If the corporate media in Western countries cite Korean sources, then it is proper for Wikipedia to do the same. The KCNA article in concern cites the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK which is certaom;y a reliable source on the subject. That you would characterize Korean media as a "self-parody" and delete text that serves to give this article a neutral point of view casts serious doubt on your good faith. Nierva (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend on getting involved with this discussion, as I've had my fill of disputes here, however, I will caution you to comment on the content, not on the editor. Incivility by any party will not be tolerated. There's enough drama at this article just by its often controversial nature; we don't need to add to it by making insinuations about each other. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this as drama-less as possible.

The UN issue - UNSC 82 was passed before President Truman gave his speech, you are trying to portray the UN as an American mouthpiece and America as breaking international law and this is not true. A mention of the timing of UNSC 83 may be called for but your biased wording and the elimination of all mentions of UNSC 82 are inappropriate. Also, unanimity by all P-5 nations is not needed, they routinely abstain from voting on important issues, anyone who says it is a requisite for action is confused at best.

We cannot accept sourced that come from State Media, let alone Chinese State Media. You must, in accordance with wikipedia policies, find third-party sources.

Your characterization of the Government of the United States as a "regime" makes you look like nothing more than a communist provocateur. - Schrandit (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Such indiscriminate deletion of sourced text is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and will not be tolerated, particularly when a satisfactory explanation has not been provided. The user above is providing his own unsourced interpretation of historical facts, which is meaningless.

The assertion that Wikipedia does not use State Media from other countries is incorrect. To dismiss sources such as the KCNA is not wise, for much of the West's information on the DPRK is derived from such sources. There are countless articles on Wikipedia that employ sources ranging from BBC to Xinhua; this very article cites the BBC. Wikipedia has to entertain sourced perspectives from all participants in a conflict, provided that it is clearly attributed. Indeed, this article cites the same sources that you are trying to remove. There exists no basis for your actions.

Concerning the United Nations, Security Council Resolution 82 does not relate to the issue of intervention. It was Security Council Resolution 83 that made a non-binding recommendation for States to assist the "Republic of Korea". Gross, Schick, and others demonstrate that Truman on 27 June 1950 ordered the invasion of Korea before UNSC Resolution 83 was passed. Concerning voting among the members of the UN Security Council, Gross thoroughly demonstrates that unanimity among the permanent five members, whether cast by a vote of approval or abstention, is necessary to issue resolutions on important matters. Nierva (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Commencing drama.

My "indiscriminate deletion" was not indiscriminate nor was it contrary to wikipedia's guidelines. What is decidedly contrary to wikipedia's guidelines is to carry out an edit war without working to achieve consensus here first.

Allowing the State Media of a belligerent nation to serve as a citation falls way outside objective third party sourcing. I highly object in the strongest manner possible to your paragraph alleging mass killings of communist prisoners of war. The KCNA is only ever used to show what the DPRK government is thinking, never to argue historical fact. Find credible neutral sources or leave it out.

Concerning the United Nations.

-Your sources are on JSTOR which is not an open source

-Don't Bullshit me, P5 members abstain all the time, if you want me to I can throw mountains of evidence at you on this point

-Mention 83 all you want, just don't delete mention of 82 and stop framing the language to make it look like the US violated international law

I will not allow my nation to be slandered in this manner and I will allow this site to become a mouthpiece for Pyongyang. - Schrandit (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are allegations about the abuse of American prisoners of war, then it would only be a exercise of objectivity to include analagous allegations from the other side. Considering that the DPRK government's representatives are regularly invited to speak at the United Nations, it would only be proper to cite sources published in the DPRK. The case for censoring the KCNA is especially weak when this article contains citations of the BBC and NPR. That the allegations are attributed to the DPRK Government in this article conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning a neutral point of view and attribution. No one has presented the allegations from the DPRK foreign ministry reported by the KCNA as fact. If we were to reject out of hand all information published in the DPRK, then we would know nothing about the country. Nierva (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Nierva on this issue; that North Korea has even made the allegations is enough to warrant mention in the article. WP:NPOV requires as much. Of course, the allegations should be attributed specifically to the North Korean government, and presented necessarily as fact, but they unquestionably do need to be in the article. Remember, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. However, to caveat the preceding remarks, I strongly disagree with Nierva's edits irt the mentioning of Truman and the UN (Resolution 82 needs to be in the article), etc. Parsecboy (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

US MIAS KOrean Conflict Stats

According to report of June 24, 2008 at

• Number of remains total unacccounted for: 8,055
• Number of remains reparited are: 489 of whom 100 are identifed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.47 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise it also notes that in 1969 a US Navy Aircraft was shot down over Sea of Japan by North Korean fighter-2 killed/recoverd and 29 missing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.47 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)