Talk:Korean War/Archive 9

ROK stance on the outcome
The 1953 view appears in South Korean official sources as well:. The ROK's army website says: "The Korean War which was a bloody war between one nation was at last over as the Korean War Armistice agreement was reached on July 27, 1953". Also, the 3-volume The Korean War compendium, published by Korea Institute of Military History, covers only 1950-53 timespan (this is aside from all other sources, which constitute a majority view).

The arrangements of the armistice's article II itself leave no room for any further actions, that could be termed as "war" (since 1953 there were just few isolated clashes scattered throughout years). Brand meister t   11:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to think the post-1953 actions deserve a campaign/conflict-type article of their own, though I would say it's untrue to say the war is de facto over. The incidents since the original war certainly are often military actions. — Ed! (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that South Korea is interested in unification by the means of war (and certainly neither does North). It's rather a frozen conflict, in which two countries are at the state of war, but the war in its common definition is over. Brand meister  t   23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1950 - 1953 could be de facto for major sources such as the United States, and so on. However, official records of Republic of Korea never stated that the war is over, nor ROK signed for cease fire back in 1953. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs)

The "war" ended in 1953 by the Armistice. That ongoing incidents have occurred does not change that. Alarbus (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By which dictionary states cease fire armistice as the end of war? If the war ended in 1953, why is still both ROK and DPRK never states officially that the war is over? Kadrun (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * sabre-rattling ;) Alarbus (talk)


 * I didn't mention any dictionary. World War I ended by armistice, too (and yes, there was a peace treaty afterwards). Most of the shrill talk of there still being a "State of War" is saber-rattling. Alarbus (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem we have in Korean War page is that the major belligerents such as ROK and DPRK decline the end of the war for possibility of future "invasion". Kadrun (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * sabre-rattling ;) And World War II. Alarbus (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * From my standpoint, the article deserves a short section noting that the war is still technically ongoing. It would be inappropriate to say the war is over - legally it isn't, and actions like the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong are decidedly military conflicts in nature. But we also don't need to structure the article as though it is a conflict-in-progress. If tensions ever flare in Korea again, reliable sources (and Wikipedia) will almost certainly consider them a Second Korean War because the nature of the conflicts will be so different. — Ed! (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not over. This "justifies" (supposedly), the North Koreans periodic sabre rattling by firing projectiles into unprotected areas and killing people, normally a casus belli. But since they are already at war, no big deal! The U.S. still is officially in a "state of emergency" to deal with the Korean War, sanctioned by Congress. That is, if anything needed to be done there, the President would not have to consult Congress, but would simply order it. Student7 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: 'Convoked' is not a word.
In the section "Korea divided (1945–1949)," please change the the following sentence: "On 10 May, South Korea convoked their first national general elections that the Soviets first opposed, then boycotted, insisting that the US honor the trusteeship agreed to at the Moscow Conference."

Convoked is not a word... I think that the author/editor was looking to use the word 'convened'.

Bohney (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My on-Screen keyboard insists that convoked is a word programmed into it. Dru of Id (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * convoked. Alarbus (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually "Convoked" is a word, the past tense form of "convoke" meaning to call together an assembly; it is archaic and now not often seen, except as the the root word of of "convocation". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/convoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Potential new article: Books about the Korean War
There is a really lengthy section for Further Reading in this article, and I am thinking about splitting this off into a new article titled Books about the Korean War. I would be interested to know if anyone has any comments or concerns. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO this would be contrary to What_Wikipedia_is_not. It would be more useful to prune the list to ten (or so) highly notable books. It is nearly impossible to monitor a list when it is imbedded in the article because most of us don't have access to that sort of extensive library. We do not know whether a book is there because it is important, or because someone wants it to be important (spam). When the list is separate, no one will monitor it (I am monitoring "Important people from state x) and believe me, no one except me will take responsibility for it. When this stuff gets separated, responsibility and quality go out the window. Student7 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support an article like Literature about the Korean War that studies the books and tendencies of how things are reported and regarded, but only an analysis piece would be appropriate - a simple list of book links would be very unhelpful. — Ed! (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A simple list of books is unhelpful. That is why it does not belong in this vital article. I think it is inappropriate to keep the material here on the basis that anyone watching this article is monitoring the quality of the existing list or has read many of these books. We have no way of knowing right now which of these books is important or high-quality. I personally do not have access to any of them except Halberstam. The idea is to cut the article down to a reasonable size with the intention of taking it to GA someday. All our vital articles should be at GA or better, imho, and this is one of the steps that we will have to take, I think. I recently finished this process with the Adolf Hitler article, and the further reading section was considered expendable. Thoughts? --Dianna (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support creating a list-type article about this. Looking around there seems to be precedent, but those examples I see tend to be bloated and neglected. I support creating such an article on the basis that a "further reading" list seems to do more harm than good on a VA. — Ed! (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have been more up-front with my GA hopes and the direction I hope to go. By the way, many of the books listed in the bibliography are not actually in the article, and will have to be removed to the further reading section. I am between projects at the moment so I will probably get that step done tomorrow or on the weekend. --Dianna (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good. I have access to a lot of these resources. I should be able to help you. — Ed! (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's really good news. Cause I got nothing but Halberstam. Thank you for offering assistance -- Dianna (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure what you were trying to accomplish with the new article, but I just finished reorganizing the new article by merging my own book stash and rearrange headers according to book focuses. I don't know whether the entry level university textbooks and dead URLs should be kept in the new article, and there are several huge holes in the bibliography. Anyone willing to fix those problems can help me out there. Jim101 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada Missing
Canada is missing from the right-hand count, except for in the Casualty list. Canada should have a count of 26,791 troops participating, as per Military_history_of_Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.48.202 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Canada had 516 KIA.--24.202.190.53 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
According to the infobox, France had 1,120 troups in the conflict. Then the casualty box says France suffered 262 dead and 1,008 wounded. So that means almost every single French soldier was wounded? Seems kind of off... no?--Munin75 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Same kind of numbers for Thailand. Is this correct?--Munin75 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the figure of 1,120 troops if France's peak strength, not the total number of French soldiers that served in the course of the entire conflict. Although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the specific figures themselves, due to this I would say they are likely right. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find total numbers of troops who served with allied nations. Anyone know of any good sources that cover them? — Ed! (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Most nations involved in the Korean War had compile official history on their involvements in the Korean War (off the top of my head...North Korea, South Korea, US, China, France, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, Turkey, maybe the Philippines and the Netherlands), and that would be the place (maybe the only place?) to get that number. What we have here is not a source availability problem, but a lack of researcher/translators from other nations to provide those information for the article. Jim101 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Would have to have the rotation schedule for these countries. I would guess that some of the larger countries could provide small numbers of troops and they could be rotated fairly frequently, resulting in total casualties that might actually exceed peak strength. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

forms of government
This article mentions capitalism as a form of government. Capitalism is a form of economy and is not descriptive of a political system in the same way dictatorship, monarchy, republic, representative republic, democracy, or communism describe government. Socialism, being a form of economy with government ownership can exist in all government systems as well as free markets or (capitalism) This is a huge inaccuracy in wording that should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trappy77 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On one hand you are right. But for this time frame, the south was not exactly a great democracy. It's taken years to work into that from whatever was there pre-WW II. So permitting capitalism as opposed to disallowing capitalism is about the only way we can contrast the two systems. Or pro-West or pro-East. While the South was not totalitarian as was the North, neither was it a bastion of democracy either. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias - especially in regard to photos
This article is written very much from a Western perspective. Numerous facets of the article are concerning, but for now I will just mention one: of the 35 photographs in the article, 34 are from Western sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you spot a Chinese or Korean source with photos, by all means inform us. The lack of available information from their side has been an intense frustration of many of this page's editors. — Ed! (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fair complaint, but there really aren't many photos of North Korean/Chinese forces. I just created a new montage for the lead (see below) and couldn't find any good photos of North Korean or Chinese forces; what images we have are mostly destroyed equipment and captured soldiers, neither of which are much better in terms of bias (i.e., plenty of photos of UN equipment/soldiers in combat, only photos of neutralized NK/C equipment/soldiers). Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would upload more photos if it wasn't for the stupid URAA... Jim101 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we can probably cite fair use for a couple images from North Korea/China, given that they're not replaceable with free use content, and there's unlikely any market for them. We can't use more than two or three in this article, so maybe you could pick a couple of the most valuable images in terms of content (like NK/Chinese troops in action, marching down a road, tanks/artillery, or things along those lines) and upload them with a fair use claim. I can help set up the fair use documentation on the image pages if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Iconic, eh? This definitely counts, although it is also a popular photo in Western press, so it may cause some lawsuit concerns. This photo may be overplaying the human wave stereotype, but its psychological impact is undeniable. This photo signifies the high point in Chinese intervention. This photo signifies PLAAF in Korea. This photo signifies the Korean War's proximity to China. This entire photo gallery demonstrates the fact that Korean War is a total war in China, so take your pick. Finally, before people start complaining that too many dead/captured Chinese got plastered around the article, These are some poor chaps from US 2nd Infantry Division while those are some poor lads from the British 29th Infantry Brigade. I also uploaded other photos in some of my Korean War articles (Ch'ongch'on River, Chosin, Maryang san, etc) if you care to browse them. If you want more, let me know. Jim101 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Korean War Not Over, really
Despite the fighting that ceased in 1953, the Korean War is still going on. The Choenan and Yeongpang incidents would be directly related to this! A treaty that is signed and recognized by all parties is the formal and OFFICAL end to the war! And, as the smart guys that we are, apparently, we have accepted that recognition when looking at many wars. GameGuy95 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I too find it very disturbing that the war is listed as "over" particularly when there are active hostilities on a daily basis, perhaps not open combat, but rounds are exchanged. An armistice is simply an end to open combat, not an end to hostilities the article should reflect this. List of border incidents involving North Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.200.253 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

New montage
Hey all, for what it's worth, I've created a new montage here - it's based on the current montage but with a couple photos swapped out and much higher resolution. Feel free to use it or not. The images in the body will need to be tweaked to avoid repeating the two new photos in the montage, if you decide to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Parsecboy. I finally got around to trying it out in the article, so we'll see what people think. --Dianna (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

M-46 vs M-26
The caption describes the tank depicted in the photo as an M-46 but the up-loader refers to it as an M26. I believe it's an M46 given the absence of the skirts but but for the sake of consistency, both the up-loader's caption and the caption as noted in the article, should be uniform. Any thoughts?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The lack of side skirts isn't important - there are plenty of images of M26s without them (see here and here). The actual NARA description is "With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl tiredly trudges by a stalled M-26 tank, at Haengju, Korea." Given that the children are obscuring about a third of the tank, including most of the turret, it's going to be impossible to differentiate between the two very similar tanks. The M46 was, afterall, basically an improved M26. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True. So we can't say for sure if its either, or. Are you okay with the caption the way it is given the uncertainty?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we should use the NARA description, which labels it an M26, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Since we can't definitively prove it's either tank, we have to go with the NARA caption. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll make the change. Thanks for your input.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

War Crime section
This section needs to be renamed to something akin to 'War Crimes and Civillian casualites' or some sort of reordering is needed to seperate war crimes from collateral damage and civillian losses as a result of combat. The Yongsan bombing and Hangang Bridge bombing articles, which are linked in the war crime section, mention nothing of them being war crimes, although yes they resulted in high civillian casualties as a result. They do not belong in a section entitled war crimes, there appearance in a section entitled as such appears to violate the OR guidelines and being promoting information outside of the NPOV guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda War in the infobox.
IP 222.35.185.149 insisting in inserting the claim the US bombed China before China intervened in the Korean War, while established scholars since 1990s have already confirmed that it is just a part of Chinese War to Resist American and Aid Korea mass propaganda campaign to whip the Chinese populace into war mind set (not to mention no notable research into USAF has ever detected an anomaly in this issue). Not only that, the IP demanded on my talk page that either the propaganda claim to be treated equally as fact, or he is going remove US and South Korean source as part of the NPOV editing. This is pure bullshit, and I can't believe no editors other than me is trying to stopping this disruptive editing. Jim101 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the IP also demands that I conduct personal interview with Chinese before I can pass judgement on his truth. This is beautiful. Jim101 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the IP state that his source is reliable, with a book title called "Condemn American War Crime Against China". I also did a further research in the book series that the IP used, not surprisingly the next few books in the series are "American War Crimes during Their Occupation of China during the Civil War", The "Fascifation of America", etc. And finally, the books are published in 1950, the year China decided to enter the Korean War. Reliable source? I think not. Jim101 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sources such as these pretty clearly fall in the non-RS category. — Ed! (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
As one of your contributors who actually remembers the Korean conflict I would like to add to this section.

When Truman was supposed to be ready to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, according to the History Channel Macarthur immediately indented for twenty six and some were indeed moved to Okinawa.

As soon as this was announced the British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, flew to Washington and according to statements issued at the time that if nuclear weapons were to be used he was withdrawing all British troops from Korea.

A legal loophole was found in that Truman was able to authorise the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a State of War between America and Japan had been authorised and declared by Congress and the full resources of the state could be used. As no state of war was ever declared in Korea, nuclear weapons could not be used. This policy also applied to the later Viet Nam conflict. As a State of War was never declared in either conflict theses are both usually completely mis-labelled as wars.

For the record the last person to have declared a State of War was seems to have been Adolph Hitler on America in 1941. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That assertion is incorrect. Though declarations of war by states have been rare since 1945, they have occured. For example Panama declared war against the united states in 1989 and this was used as a casus belli for the US invasion there.XavierGreen (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this page after seeing that docu on TV, because I thought it couldn't have been quite so neat. The omission that Yalta granted the Soviet Union one half of Korea once the Japanese had been defeated, made me suspicious - plus, the Soviet Union was to have been 'invited' to defeat Japan, should they not have surrendered by 3 months after Berlin's capitulation. Berlin's capitulation was on the 8th May 1945. 2 days before the 3 months were up, the nuclear bombs were dropped. 1 day after the 3 months were up, the Soviets declared war, presumably not sure if Japan had surrendered in a legal sense within those 3 days, to make sure they get their Korean half. Communication was slower in those days, too, and what reached the Kremlin when after the bombs on the 6th August 1945 may have also played a role.

We had a discussion here whether the threat of nuclear weapons did indeed do the trick. Would be interesting to see a timeline that relates the beginning of the negotiations and the withdrawal of some Chinese troops to the nuclear issue. The negotiations started on 10 July 1951, and the preceding preparations would have been at least 4 weeks, I think. 144.136.179.24 (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current scholar consensus is that nuclear weapon had no effect in ending the Korean War. China had been assuming that US will be using nuclear weapon against them ever since July 1951, yet that did not deter them from entering the Korean War. If you bothered to consult this article, you will see that the Chinese strength in Korea actually increased as the war dragged on. The only thing that mattered was that Stalin died in March 1953, just before the resumption of talks on April 1953, in which Mao lost an important backer in his quest of world wide revolution. I believe you will find the relevant meta analysis in the book . Jim101 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of War
All right XavierGreen, if you are sure that Adolph Hitler wasn’t the last Head of State to Declare a State of War, I’ll withdraw this comment. I did ask a university librarian and online if anybody was aware of a later such Declaration and nobody seemed aware of such.AT Kunene (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Panama declared a state of war with the United States on 15 December 1989, there is some scholarly disagreement over what the Panamanian assembly meant by it, but they did declare a state of war none the less. There have been at least three instances that i know of that states declared war against the united states without a formal declaration being reciprocated by the USA (Tripoli in 1801, Morocco in 1802, and Panama in 1989) Its also possible that there were similar circumstances with Tunis, Algiers, Morocco, and Tripoli in the mid to late 1780's and im fairly certain there was an unreciprocated declaration of war against the United States by Algiers in 1812.XavierGreen (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A declaration is also not needed for an armed conflict to be called a war, all that is needed are two organized factions fighting each other. Ants, bees, and chimpanzees fight wars between colonies (for ants and bees) and between troops (for chimpanzees). Chimpanzee troops when pressured by other troops will fight wars of annihilation against neighboring troops in order to expand there territory just as humans do.XavierGreen (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Heading montage
There are a grand total 0 images representing the Communist forces in the montage... In a war with two clear combatants one side is totally unrepresented. Why? --99.232.170.57 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The main problem is the lack of images. There are many free-use photos available of and by Americans from the war, but we have very few from the Chinese/North Korean side. Here is the former montage with its caption for comparison; it has one image of Chinese soldiers. The images are lower resolution. The three presently available montages are viewable on the Commons: commons:Category:Montages of the Korean War -- Dianna (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Soviet War Crimes
"The handwritten document in Russian was discovered by the Woodrow Wilson International Center, a U.S. think tank devoted to national security, and translated into English. “The immoral behavior of our servicemen is horrible. Regardless of rank, they indulge in looting, violence and misconduct every day here and there. They continue to do so since few have been punished,” the document said."  Certainly explains why so many “Americans” depicted in DPKR atrocity propaganda posters look decidedly Slavic.

There seems to be much more along these lines and should be added to the article. Ungläubige (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This DongA news article is about Soviet red army's misconducts in 1945, when they occupied northern half of the peninsular. Korean War broke out in 1950, thus it's not their war crimes during the war. PBJT (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Truman's deployment of Troops into Korea
President Truman actually first deployed troops in June 26. This is a very important point, considering the U.N. Security Resolution did not request assistance until June 27. Please add this to the page (it is locked for me).

http://books.google.com/books?id=CwN6RATLAk0C&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=%22some+american+action,+said+to+be+in+support+of+the+resolution+of+june+27%22&source=bl&ots=ASOSWC5KZj&sig=fggjCTXgT35zhIiucLKppjxgeNE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aGyvT7e-Gqa50AH0h-miDA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22some%20american%20action%2C%20said%20to%20be%20in%20support%20of%20the%20resolution%20of%20june%2027%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.55.228 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Truman originally sent the troops in, I believe, to assist in the evacuation of US nationals. Their purpose there wasn't to fight an armed conflict until a few days later. — Ed! (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Figures presented for UN forces
I'd just like to question the figures supplied for the various UN contingents. Certainly, this isn't my area of expertise but all the ones I have looked into (Belgian, Luxembourg and Greek in particular) are totally out to the tune of several hundred.

The figures that I have for the Belgian contingent is: 3,171 soldiers served in Korea 1951-1955 and 78 Luxembourgers attached to the contingent - quite a long way from the 900 and 44 cited.

Are the figures cited just random guesses or is there some logic to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.12.182 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a common mistake for people to include just the largest number of troops in the country at one time instead of the total number of troops from that country who served for the duration of the conflict. If you've got better sources than what's provided, by all means include them. — Ed! (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the current consensus? A few month ago it was display peak troop strength only, now it is back to total strength? Jim101 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't think I was a part of that consensus. I tend to believe the total strength is better for the article on the overall war, but if something else has been established, that's fine. — Ed! (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my opinion to this discussion, it is natural that people question the cited source. This Military History Institute website of South Korea's Ministry of Defense is the single cited source without proper translation of the Korean text. I'm not questioning the reliability of the source. Even in the cited source, it shows that total number of Belgian solders who participated during the course of war was 3,498. Total of 83 Luxembourgers solders participated in the Korean War. These figures (3,498 and 83) are close to the IP user's source (3,171 and 78).

As for the question of "Total participants of the war" vs. "Maximum level of troops", I have no idea which one represent better. But Vietnam War is using "Maximum level of troops", and I think we should be consistent with the practice. --- PBJT (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I modified the peak Chinese strength since that is the consensus we are going... Jim101 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, I think it's definitely important to include something about the total number in the article somewhere, as that's going to be something a lot of people will want to know. — Ed! (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then, let's start a section called something like the "scale of conflict" in the "characteristics" section. Although this may take a bit of collaborative effort. I know for fact that I will add the following statement in the section:
 * For the People's Republic of China, the conflict has been viewed as a matter of survival for both China and the newly established communist government. As such, about 73 percent of Chinese infantry forces, 67 percent of Chinese artillery forces, 100 percent of Chinese armored forces and 52 percent of Chinese air forces were deployed in Korea at one point or another, alongside 600,000 civilian laborers – in total more than three million civilian and military personnel. China had also consumed 5.6 million tons of war materiel, 399 aircraft and 12,916 vehicles for its war efforts. About a third of the Chinese government's annual budget was spent on the military between 1950–53, totaling 10 billion RMB by the war's end. All in all, the Korean War was the largest foreign war in Chinese military history, despite the fact that no declaration of war ever existed between China and United Nations forces.
 * If anybody else can provide the same kind of information for at least North Korea, South Korea, United States and the Commonwealth, then I think we can piece together the section quite nicely. Jim101 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Total strength: I would imagine that the article uses "total dead," not dead during a 24-hour period or something, so that needs to be offset by "total strength," IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First Sentence
Since its admitted that this war is still under cease fire, would it be correct to change the firs sentence to:

The Korean War is a war between the Republic of Korea (supported primarily by the United States of America, with contributions from allied nations under the aegis of the United Nations) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (supported by the People's Republic of China, with military and material aid from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.74.9 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a war between the North and South, with U.S. providing support to the South, and the other parties of Korean War like China, Russia (Soviet Union), and United Nations forces are not engaged in the war anymore. So, was is accurate, and we don't need to change the first sentence. --- PBJT (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim Il-sung's trip to China on April 1975.
A newly reclassified diplomatic cable of East Germany shows that Kim Il-sung asked for China's aid for another military conflict (likely a second Korean War) in the Peninsular. Source: East German Documents on Kim Il Sung’s April 1975 Trip to Beijing, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Could this document included somewhere in the article? North Korea emphasized a peaceful dialogue between North and South during this periods, and they intentionally provoked at the Joint Security Area a year later (Axe murder incident on August 1976). Any suggestions? --- PBJT (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Be bold, but not reckless. Document's itself should not be directly quoted/paraphrased per WP:PSTS, but a summary of Dr. Ria Chae's findings is extremely helpful. Jim101 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many Thanks for your advice, Jim101! I'll try to include the contents later. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock the page
UNLOCK THIS PAGE !!! bad data  says that the vietnam country was divided = mixes up the wars !!1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.250.118 (talk • contribs), diff
 * Could you please pinpoint which part of the article is misleading? As for the un-protecting this article, you have to ask to admins. Or you could be an registered user, and once you become an autoconfirmed after a couple of edits, you could correct the error by yourself. Best, ---PBJT (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Herring. None of the places where Vietnam is mentioned have any inaccuracies. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, as long as people keeps on jumping into the article and start editing like this, I doubt this article will ever be unlocked. Jim101 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * this shows the bias of this article pretty clearly, only researchers from America are reliable? really? You have to realize stories from both sides are obviously full of lies. It's not wise to only show the lies from one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, People's Daily and Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China are excellent and must read sources in its brilliant analysis of Korean War history and its exclusion means censorship against Chinese...this is the exact kind of BS that prevents this page from unlocked in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Transparency is the issue. Democratic societies have oppositions that force the truth to be revealed, however unpleasant. This is not present on the opposite side.
 * Keep it locked. Forever, if necessary. Student7 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say though that with the number of complaints the page receives, I would eventually like to rework some of the sources so that the majority of citations are to 3rd party books. — Ed! (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

POV & Non-Neutral parts of article
What can be done about these? There seems to be several POV and biased parts of this article, and some statements with practically no legitimate sourcing. One example is the text "With Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong fighting over the control of the Korean Peninsula,[59]", using Voice of America (are you kidding me?) as a source. This article needs some Non-POV clean up. Majin Takeru (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, a lot of material has been kept one sided(especially towards south korea) in whole article. Clarificationgiven (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been continuing to discuss solutions to this problem, but it's very difficult in the Korean War. Both China and North Korea have not been very forthcoming with neutral information unhindered by propaganda. There are some independent books written on the matter which should be worked in. — Ed! (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Majin Takeru: It's not surprising that a self-described communist who "supports Chinese unification at all costs including military intervention" would feel that way; however, the bias runs very far in the opposite direction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Numbers can't be right.
The beginning of racial integration efforts in the U.S. military began during the Korean War, where African Americans fought in integrated units for the first time. Among the 1.8 million American soldiers who fought in the Korean War there were more than 100,000 African Americans.[256]

These number can't be right. Otherwise whole article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.240.104.47 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Combat strength of U.S. combat forces is listed in the article as 302,000; but not all military personnel were combat forces. Even so the number 1.8 million is extremely high, unless it includes all US personnel that have served in Korea from 1950 to present day. These numbers need to be checked and clarification made. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All people who served, even stateside, are considered "veterans" of the Korean War, between certain years.
 * The word "fought" sometimes pushes the envelope! Do you actually have to shoot or be shot at? Once you've crossed that line, a lot of people start to become eligible. Certainly naval and Air Force support personnel in the Korean War zone are "vets" but may have never have actually been fired upon. I think the number was 1 out of 8 GIs who were in combat in WWII. The ratio has increased dramatically since.
 * Americans tend to rotate troops, after six months or a year, so that total combatants usually exceeds by many factors the troops that were there at any one time. Student7 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The number given for Canada in the article are 6,150 deployed and 312 dead, 1,212 wounded but on the page for military history of Canada it says there were 26,791 deployed and 516 dead, 1,042 wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.142.240 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the Korean War article lists the ground troops numbers, while the Military History of Canada numbers are for all military personnel deployed, including combat and support troops of all service. This should be checked and verified, and clarifications to the article made as needed. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
New edits seem to have made some very odd changes, additions, deletions and modifications. For example, a user added "In this case, the assumption proved correct" and cited Wainstock 1999. This appears to be an editorial statement, not a sourced reference to Wainstock. Further removals and additions seem unsupported. I would like to see an explanation here. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Check the edit history.  Student7 added an even more controversial statement that all communists were controlled by Moscow.  It probably should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to changes made by you, not Student7. You are the one who added "In this case, the assumption proved correct" and other claims, and removed sourced material. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Viriditas failed to check edit history as requested. Student7 ascribed the claim that all communists in the world were controlled by Moscow to Wainstock.  I watered it down because it was blatantly POV.  I avoided total removal to avoid antagonizing anyone.  Now, you're grasping for straws to attack me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I recognize you. You are the one who added "In this case, the assumption proved correct".  Does the source support that statement?  You also removed a lot of material.  Could you explain your edits please?  I've asked you three times now and you've provided no response here at all.  Why did you make these edits?  What is the reason for the removal of one POV and the promotion of another?  Do you understand the NPOV policy? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to play games with you.  I changed "the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow" to "in this case, the assumption proved correct".  I agree that the claim is based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  You have to provide an explanation for all 500-plus bytes you insist on removing, but you have nothing.  I'm willing to discuss anything.  Don't patronize me; I don't ask you if you understand what original research means even though you employ it frequently, such as when writing about Paul Ryan's "alleged" enjoyment of Rage Against the Machine.  I know that you understand Wikipedia policy--you simply choose to ignore it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your three responses indicate you are only interested in playing games. I've repeatedly asked you to explain your edits and you have repeatedly refused.  I will ask you again, but this time, I will be more specific:
 * Why was the number of total killed changed from 776,360 to 178,698, and from 1,545,822–1,648,582 to 367,283-615,282?
 * Why did you change the material sourced to Wainstock 1999? Do your changes reflect the source accurately?
 * Why did you remove several paragraphs of content sourced to the Associated Press story from 1999, "U.S. Allowed Korean Massacre In 1950"?
 * Why did you remove the image caption citing the policy on strafing civilian refugees?
 * Why did you remove the reference to Gregory Henderson, Blum's book Killing Hope : US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
 * Why did you replace several reliable sources, such as CNN with less reliable sources, such as a paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank, and add figures from the less reliable source?
 * Could you please defend these edits? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I am on it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If you can't explain your edits, then you should self-revert until the time comes that you can.  You can't edit war your edits into an article. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for time to compose my response. You are too eager to edit war, and I'm trying to calm you down now that you have worked yourself into a frenzy of personal attacks and hounding.  Why not check back in a half hour?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why was the number of total killed changed from 776,360 to 178,698, and from 1,545,822–1,648,582 to 367,283-615,282?"
 * The "total" was changed to "total killed" (and the number corrected in accordance with that alteration) because, otherwise, chumps might mistake it for the "total killed", even though the numbers wouldn't add up (as it was counting all casualties). I've now broken down the figures into "dead" and "wounded".  I did this with the aid of my calculator.
 * "Why did you change the material sourced to Wainstock 1999? Do your changes reflect the source accurately?"
 * I changed "During this era, at the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver" to "During this era, at the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver". I believe this does reflect the source accurately, because Student7's addition of the word "correctly" came after the fact and was apparently based on OR (see his edit summary).
 * No, you added, "In this case, the assumption proved correct" which does not appear to be in the source cited. Is there a reason you keep refusing to answer simple questions about your edits? Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove several paragraphs of content sourced to the Associated Press story from 1999, "U.S. Allowed Korean Massacre In 1950"?
 * I didn't. I removed one sentence, which stated the number of political prisoners in South Korea "at the time of the North Korean invasion" without offering any comparable numbers for North Korea.  Since there was already extensive discussion of atrocities, combining these numbers with "the North decided to invade" appears to offer a rationale for the invasion.  It may violate WP:SYNTH, unless the source actually says "at the time of the invasion".
 * I see I'm dealing with a wikilawyer. You deleted several paragraphs of content sourced to the Associated Press series of stories by  Charles J. Hanley, not just one story. Apparently, if I don't use exact language you will only tell half-truths.  I guess it is too much to expect intellectual honesty.  You deleted the following AP content from Hanley:"By the time of the North Korean invasion, Syngman Rhee had suppressed all leftist political activity, held up to 30,000 political prisoners and had rounded up 300,000 alleged leftist sympathizers into the re-education body....USAMGIK officers were present at one political execution site; at least one US officer sanctioned the mass killings of political prisoners whom the North Koreans would have freed after conquering the peninsular south...The father of Bodo League massacre survivor Kim Jong-chol was press-ganged to work with the KPA and later executed by the Rhee Government as a collaborator; his grandparents and a seven-year-old sister also were executed. About his experience in Namyangju city, he says: Young children or whatever, were all killed en masse. What did the family do wrong? Why did they kill the family? When the people from the other side [North Korea] came here, they didn't kill many people." Now, are you going to make up another story about why you removed this material from the Associated Press for no reason? Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove the image caption citing the policy on strafing civilian refugees?
 * Because showing a US government document, a primary source, under "war crimes" is original research. We shouldn't publish descriptions of policies and then declare them to be criminal; we are supposed to find reliable sources that label them criminal.
 * No, it is not original research in any way, shape, or form.. The document, which can be seen here, File:Shootingkoreancivilians.jpg, is fully cited and sourced widely in the secondary literature as the "Policy on Strafing Civilian Refugees".  As I've said before, this is clear evidence that you are editing in bad faith.  It does not and cannot meet any known criteria for "original research". Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the reference to Gregory Henderson, Blum's book Killing Hope : US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
 * There was no reference to Henderson, only to Blum's book (which quotes him). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission reference was moved, not removed.  Here is the issue:  Henderson claims that up to 100,000 civilians were killed by the South Korean government in total.  The truth commission estimated 100,000 to 200,000 total killings--which was written as "hundreds of thousands".  Several different times in the article, POV-pushing editors repeated these numbers, without doing anything comparable for North Korea.  However, the Bodo League Massacre--the largest South Korean massacre of them all--already had a section devoted to it.  And in that section, a foreign language source (that may not pass verification) is used to justify a far larger estimate of 1.2 million (presumably killed) in that massacre alone!  Repeating these numbers over and over leads to double counting--kind of like how you looked at the word "total" and assumed that it meant "killed".  I added another academic source stating that 100,000 South Koreans died in "political disturbances, guerrilla warfare, and border clashes".  The article text reads as follows:  "The true purpose of the anti–communist Bodo League, abetted by the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), was the régime's execution of some 10,000 to 100,000 "enemies of the state" whom they dumped in trenches, mines, and the sea, before and after the 25 June 1950 North Korean invasion. Contemporary calculations report some 100,000 to 1,200,000.[clarification needed]"  Note that I didn't remove the incredibly high estimate, nor the weasel words about the USAMGIK--and that it sure is amazing estimates can range from 10,000 to over 1,000,000!
 * No, the "Civilian deaths and massacres" section is more of an executive summary and summarizes the data with sources. The material in the "Bodo League anti-communist massacre" section does not. You deleted the reference to Blum's book, Killing Hope : US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and the reference to Henderson and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for no good reason, and the fact that it was only the source in English in that section makes it even worse. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you replace several reliable sources, such as CNN with less reliable sources, such as a paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank, and add figures from the less reliable source?
 * The academic study cited is reliable, but I did not remove the CNN source (as is implied by the word "replace"). The low estimate of 900,000 and the high esimate of over 3 million encompass CNN's 2 million.
 * On the contrary, you did not cite any reliable academic study. The source you refer to, "Famine in North Korea: Causes and Cures", is a self-published working paper authored by a think tank.  Working papers are discouraged on Wikipedia, rarely meet the reliable source criteria, and do not in any way shape or form supersede the CNN content you removed unless there is good reason.  Working papers are unpublished analyses that are not subject to peer review, while CNN is considered a reliable secondary source subject to editorial review. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any more questions?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of questions, because you have failed to answer every single one of them. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Now then: Why did you attempt to remove the following sources:  David Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin; Douglas J. Macdonald, "Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War"; John Lewis Gaddis, We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History; Sergei N. Goncharov, John W. Lewis and Xue Litai, Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War; William Stueck, The Korean War: An International History; John Merrill, Korea: The Peninsular Origins of the War; Marcus Noland, Sherman Robinson and Tao Wang, "Famine in North Korea: Causes and Cures"; Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism; BBC, "Tales of starvation and death in North Korea"; USN&WR, "Gulag Nation"; and so on?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A revert to a previous version that restores material is not an "attempt" to remove sources, and your false accusation indicates that you are editing in bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One final point: I tread carefully when I edit, and prefer to make changes slowly.  That's why I started by adding "total dead", and then added "total wounded".  That's why I removed a repeated claim, but not the claim itself.  That's why I replaced "the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow" with "in this case, the assumption proved correct"--before ultimately deciding to remove the commentary altogether.  You can be cynical and pretend that I created the phrase "in this case the assumption proved correct" out of thin air--rather than as a more neutral way to summarize what the text already said--but as long as you insist on playing these word games, I will be unable to take you very seriously.  What we should be discussing is:  Are there any reliable academic sources that claim 1.2 million people were killed in the Bodo massacre?  And: Should that claim be removed?  And: Does the cited source even say that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No what we should be discussing is your utter failure to defend a single edit you've made. In every response, you've either ignored the question, made excuses, misinterpreted policy to push a POV, or just made stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will ignore your personal attacks and address the issues.
 * "What we should be discussing is your utter failure to defend a single edit you've made."
 * You've conceded the point on the casualty figures and the removal of the number of prisoners in SK "at the time of the invasion". You are, apparently, satisfied with my (now-total) removal of the false claims ascribed to Wainstock.  That's at least a few I have defended without dispute.


 * "No, you added, "In this case, the assumption proved correct" which does not appear to be in the source cited. Is there a reason you keep refusing to answer simple questions about your edits?"
 * I have clearly answered the question, numerous times, and I removed that placeholder text before the majority of your inquiries were made. The text was a summary of what the article already said, but it lacked veracity.  Since you agree with my current revision, you appear to be trolling.  Stop dwelling on the past.


 * The following text was never removed from the article: "USAMGIK officers were present at one political execution site; at least one US officer sanctioned the mass killings of political prisoners whom the North Koreans would have freed after conquering the peninsular south."  I don't know why you think I removed it.  Check for yourself.
 * I added "The Population of North Korea", the study by Eberstadt and Bannister, to support the famine-dead range used by every other Wikipedia article that mentions the famine. Is that better?
 * The US government document "is sourced widely in the secondary literature".
 * That's great! Add the source back in, with citations from those independent sources--as long as they describe the policy as a "war crime".  I'm not objecting to the material as long as it is sourced properly, silly!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. Why is there a requirement to describe the image and caption you removed as a "war crime"?  If you disagreed with the subsection heading, why would you remove the image and caption?  Again, you are telling half-truths and expecting nobody to catch on or notice. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not lie by claiming that I removed the truth commission again. It is citation 237.  It was never removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You were previously corrected on this point, so you either don't understand what you read or you are the one with the "honesty" problem. You removed the reference to Henderson and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for no good reason.  The "reference" does not mean literally a citation, it means a reference to the content, the content you removed.  Got it? Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Why is there a requirement to describe the image and caption you removed as a "war crime"?"
 * Because you can't list it as a "war crime" unless you have a source that calls it a "war crime". You can't just say "That was mean!  It's a war crime!"  Wikipedia has to be verifiable.


 * "it means a reference to the content,"
 * There still is content: "USAMGIK officers photographed the mass killings at Daejon city in central South Korea, where the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission believes some 3,000 to 7,000 people were shot and buried in mass graves in early July 1950."

Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you even want to use Henderson's comments, as quoted in the polemical Killing Hope? We already know that the South Koreans killed 100,000 people from the truth commission, so why would we use a less reliable source for the number?  Thanks for your interest in the article,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added an entire paragraph about the truth commission, and restored your image--with its absurdly long caption--in a section that is actually appropriate for it. Are you satisfied yet? I think I've created a more neutral page we should all agree with.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Do I really want to get in the middle of this? :) I added after "Americans assumed...all communist governments were controlled by Moscow", the word "correctly" after "assumed." I did change the wording to "governments" after an editor pointed out that all communists, even at the time, were not controlled directly by Moscow. But the wording later in the article has facts, with citations, that shows that all the communist nations involved were indeed coordinating through Moscow. (I don't think I am "guilty" of anything else!). Please feel free to leave me out of the rest of the discussion!  Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is apparently over; however, it would have been helpful if you had joined in. As someone who has been editing this page for a while, you could have evaluated my edits and testified as to their neutrality (or lack thereof).  I find it unlikely that many unbiased editors would prefer the old revision.  In addition, it would have been nice for you to explain your one controversial edit, not least of all because Viriditas bizarrely insisted on blaming me for it (when I'm the one that removed it!).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Images
Didn't notice before, but the amount of images of US forces is ridiculous. Would it be harmful to add at least two or three images under fair use ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We need a FAQ or something to address this already. It comes up at least once a month ad nauseam. — Ed! (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't looked up the talk page. Obviously it's an issue of importance then. I have a couple of scans from 1950s North Korean books, pictures of NK and Chinese troops in all sorts of gear, but I have no idea under what licence they can be used. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem had been plaguing us for years. We can't get any North Korean or Chinese sources to release photos for us to use, and none of their images are recognizable enough to fall under fair use. — Ed! (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I scanned an image of the PVA crossing the Amnok River which might be useful, there's a few more pics like this to come. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that image is identical to this image. Also please be aware of this discussion and an US law called the URAAJim101 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording should reflect that the war is ongoing?
Shouldn't the wording reflect that the war is ongoing, instead of say "the Korean war was..."? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Pre-Korean War Preparations
Prior to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, The United States Congress passed the Selective Service Act of 1948. It gave the United States time to prepare for any future war. Those two years' preparation was vital to the United States being able to provide 88% of the United Nations Forces in Korea. Such preparation was also vital to the quick United Nations response. It also enabled the United States to lead the United Nations' effort to safeguard South Korean sovereignty.Delberthhall (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Critique of the Korean War
The article I chose to critique and give some constructive criticism on was about the Korean War. I didn’t know a whole bunch about the Korean War before I read this article, but after reading it, I gained some helpful knowledge that will help me on my article at a later date. This article is filled with lots of useful information, like the escalation up to the War, types of weapons, artillery, and warfare that each country used when combating. A couple weak points about this article would have to be the background information about the War. There’s no meat to it, nothing really explaining why this War occurred and the events that led up to it. Some of the information provided is different names of what the War was called and how very few people in the United States of America knew much about the War when it was happening, or the aftermath of it. Another strength of this article is the abundance of information about the other mini battles that all happened while the Korean War was taking place. These subsections provide lots of information on why it happened during that time, and the connection that it had to Korea, or the Korean War. This article is also well laid out and well organized for the reader, having no troubles finding the information that one would need. The information contained in the article is appropriate and abundant, well thought out. References are present and helpful to make sure the information given is correct. If I were to improve one thing about this article, I would choose to add more photos of the events and battling that occurred during the time to give more insight on what it was like during the war. Adding more pictures could help enhance ones vision and give more of a real life feel to what it would have been like to be in the Korean War. That would be the one thing that I would enhance to make this article a little better. Rpmcintyre (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Pat

Incheon or Inchon
Both words are used so it is confusing. It may well make sense to use to words, since it appears that "Incheon" is the name of the place today, whereas "Inchon" is the historical name used in English at the time for the place and, the name for the battle/event. Even if so, then some note should be made of this fact. So one of following I went for the last of these options since it was pretty much in use already. Someone may wish to do the same on the Battle of Inchon page.
 * 1) Standardise to the old name Inchon - this does not seem likely so I am ignoring it.
 * 2) Standardise to Incheon
 * 3) But use "Inchon (currently known as Incheon)," and "Inchon"s in the battle section
 * 4) Then use "Incheon (formerly known as Inchon)" or
 * 5) Then use "Inchon (now known as Incheon)" and follow with "Incheon"s in the battle section
 * Unnecessary. The Korean cities and events are known exclusively by the names they had back then. Just as no historian refers to the Battle of Pusan Perimeter as "Battle of Busan Perimeter," it's not necessary to mention the names of the cities, particularly since Inchon just redirects to "Incheon" anyway. — Ed! (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the writers of this Korean War article felt it necessary to modernise the romanisation since the references to Inchon/Incheon, other than the title of battle of Inchon and the first subsequent are modernised. On the Battle of Inchon page it is about half and half. That is confusing. I am not suggesting that the battle be renamed but that names for the town in the article be modernised. --Timtak (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That depended on what you believe is "confusing"...I doubt a few reader would be confused when we talk about Pusan/Busan or Inchon/Incheon, but when you talk about Jumunjin/Chumunjin, Chipyong-ni/Jipyeong-ri or Amokgang/Yalu River, then it is confusing. It really depends on the context (are you referring to a location or an event?) and how well each version of spelling is well known to the western readers. There is no point (an really counter-productive) to enforce one version of spelling over another. Jim101 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Will need to amend N/S Korean names for the Korean War
Article asserts that the terms "한국전쟁" or "조선전쟁" are the respective S/N Korean equivalents of the English appellation "Korean War." This is factually incorrect and may reflect a shallow translation of the English "Korean War" into their S/N Korean equivalents.

In South Korea, the Korean War is known as "6.25 사변" ("June 25th War" or "The War that started on June 25th"). In North Korea, it is known as "조국해방전쟁" ("War for the Liberation of the Motherland"). The Korean Wikipedia article uses the term "한국전쟁" as a neutral alternative between the two. Moreover, the term "조선전쟁" is used mainly by non-Korean neighbors such as Japan or China.

Inasmuch as I am unaware of the naming conventions in force at the moment, prior precedents on other English language war articles might suggest that either: (i) both terms ("한국전쟁" and "조선전쟁") be merged in favor of the Korean Wikipedia article title "한국전쟁," or (ii) the preferred terms "6.25 사변" and "조국해방전쟁" replace the ones currently in use.Buryatrider (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese POV
According to China's version of the war, they become involved mainly because the American air force bombed a cultural relics market in Dandong in early October of 1950. They ("they" being conservative Chinese historians) claim Chinese involvement was out of self-defense after being provoked by the U.S. The war is also called the 美國侵朝戰爭 in Chinese sometimes, which means "war of America's invasion of Korea." They also typically accept the North Korean version, that the south invaded first.

Granted, the bridge to Dandong was bombed, and there was likely some damage to the city in the process as well, but that was well after the Chinese were involved. Furthermore, Americans are famous for bombing ball bearing factories not cultural relics markets which would be an incomprehensible target to a military strategist. I am skeptical of these claims, but should they not be included in the article out of fairness to all points of view? -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a line or two at the beginning could explain that it's what Chinese and North Korean historians think, but the scholarly field seems to universally accept the record of events as the UN tells it, so it should be clear this account doesn't have much merit internationally. — Ed! (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chinese claimed that they got bombed in September/October, to justify that their troop entering Korea in October 19, yet the real bombing campaign did not start until mid-November. That, combined with the fact Chinese government engaged in an extensive propaganda campaign to justify their entrance into the war, plus no third party source cross examine the claim, make the "bombing force Chinese to enter the Korean War" narrative to be more fiction than fact.
 * The real Chinese POV, scholarly wise, is that US Seventh Fleet entered Taiwan Strait constituted the official US entrance into Chinese Civil War on the Nationalist side as part of a master plan to roll back Communism, thus Communist Chinese involvement in Korea is a justified act of self-defense. Jim101 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both completely, but we still should attempt to be diplomatic in my opinion. Would anyone take issue with adding the following after citation 131?
 * Official PRC history claims that at this point in the conflict a cultural relics market in the city of Dandong was bombed by the U.S. airforce, despite that no evidence exists of a bombing in the area at that time. Furthermore, its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to "American aggression in the guise of the U.N."
 * And I do have a source for this. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst people's bubble, but when it comes to content disputes, Wikipedia strives to be factually accurate, not to be "diplomatic" and give 15 minute fame too all crackpot claims in existence. The only thing here that is on topic and verified here is that China can only claim US bombed first as part of pretext in enter Korean War. Whether there is a "cultural relic market damage" caused by the supposed "US bombing", or how official the bombing claim is serves no purpose other than diverting people's attention away from real facts. Aside from the statement "its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to 'American aggression in the guise of the U.N.'" (which is an empty redundant statement anyway since China has been saying that since 1949), I don't see what else is there to add on this "bombing" topic without some real facts to back it up. Jim101 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, but at the same time we should be neutral without undue weight. It's enough of a criticism of the Korean War topics that we rely too much on western sources, and I think it would benefit people to include this small line...that way we present the Chinese side and explain that it's wholly unsupported by the facts, and thus avoid accusations of a pro-western pro-UN bias. — Ed! (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we could be biased when renowned Chinese historian such as Chen Jian and Zhang Shu Guang, working with original Chinese primary documents and outside of Communist control, came up with the same conclusion. Just because people complain that this article "feels" biased, doesn't mean that it is biased. Anyway, back on topic, my own position on the bombing topic is that saying more than "Chinese claimed US bombed China during September/October as part of their reason to enter the Korean War" is undue weight. How does each editor want to word this statement is up to them. Jim101 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that what the Chinese are saying is true, and it's not just any crackpot. There were a limited number of actors in the war, and each of them has a right to voice their opinion about what happened however ludicrous others find them. Were there to be a trial where the defendant was not allowed to speak because the prosecutor believed he was a crackpot for denying that he committed the crime then his rights to due process would have been violated and any verdict could be easily appealed. While this is not a courtroom, the same procedures for forming arguments apply. Objectivity demands that you entertain all sides of an issue lies and all. They can after all be just as revealing. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia functions differently than a court house, we only record verifiable facts after it is decided by the court, not synthesis fact while listening to all sides' opinions. The heart of the matter is that any statement in the nature of "US bombed China during September/October which caused X amount of damage" is an unverifiable statement that was never taken notice of any serious Cold War scholars as motivation for Chinese to enter the Korean War. Nor has the claim has ever been cross examined by large numbers independent scholarships that demonstrated its notability to warrant an conspiracy theory mention such as this example. So in the end, the only reason why this statement should be included was because it is popular (or astroturfed?)...is this how we should write Wikipedia? I'll let other editors to decide. Jim101 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * China's official explanation for why it entered the war, even if created in retrospect, is inherently notable as that of a major combatant. You cited one or two Chinese scholars who ignore it, but strongly implied that they are exiles or opponents of the regime. Are you arguing that sources and scholarship from within China are inherently unreliable and necessary to exclude because of the censorship regime there? People have unsuccessfully made the same argument about Soviet sources for World War II, ignorant of the fact that American and international sources do rely on Soviet scholarship of the war. We absolutely should write Wikipedia without excluding major viewpoints for ideological reasons. Shrigley (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it an ideological motivation to exclude WP:REDFLAG statements not backed up/verified by independent high quality sources? The issue here is that someone tries to present the statement "US bombed China before China entered the Korean War" in the topic of why China entered the Korean War, while taking advantage of the fact that there is no cross examination from independent sources due to the irrelevance/non-notability of claim to the topic at hand (a.k.a Chinese motivation to enter the Korean War). So being neutral/ideologically balanced can excuse outrageous one sided claim with no research to backup? Don't you think that if the US bombed China before China entered the Korean War claim is valid/plausible, wouldn't there be multiple independent sources from several countries to backup the claim, as oppose to histories only sanctioned by the Chinese government? Or maybe we should start to insert all sorts of claim without judgement just because one side shouts loud enough? (Maybe I should start by inserting claims from official South Korean history that Chinese conscripted South Korean as human shields, even though US Army records describing the same event have no such recollections, etc...). Jim101 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly it is not the proposal of User:D.s.ronis to present such a narrative uncritically, and without context. Actually, I now have no doubt that opposition to this reasonable proposal is ideological, since I read your response to a previous samesuch proposal, which included such words from you as "troll", "stupid", and "50 cent party". For me, this throws the veracity of all your contributions into doubt. Shrigley (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you think of me (I could be a dog for all you know), both you and User:D.s.ronis show me how you can "critically bring context" with independent sources without invoking WP:SYN on the statement "US bombed China during September/October which caused X amount of damage". I'll be waiting for the final result. Jim101 (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since you care so much about being "neutral": the bombing claim took 3.5 pages out of 1,135 pages of official Chinese history, so that is 0.3% of weight in official Chinese history. Since this article represents all world's opinions on the topic, and Chinese accounts for 20% of world population, so that means the weight of bombing topic in this article should be no more than 0.06% of text space. Since this article is composed of 14,525 words, that means this topic should be covered in under 9 words. The version you so keen on defending is composed of 71 words, while the revision I suggested is reduced to 18 words...you goddamn tell me who is not being "neutral" here. Jim101 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To say this is WP:SYNTH or WP:POPULARITY is incoherent. It is a verifiable fact that official Chinese histories contain these unverifiable statements. It is not the statements themselves which anyone is presenting as verifiable fact, only the belief in those statements. It is important to historians and policy analysts to understand Chinese revisionist histories and how Chinese contemporaries view their place in history. This informs their opinions, influences their values, their identity, and thus behavior. This information is relevant and important to anyone studying the topic. Nothing about its inclusion implies its veracity let alone the existence of a conspiracy theory, but it does reveal much about Chinese beliefs about foreign policy. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an case study of cultural/political impact of Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, not the history of Korean War. Taking information out of context and rambling off topic is not neutral either. Jim101 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that what one of the major actors says was their reason for entering a war should be included in an article about that war, briefly, but it should be presented as critically as it is in reliable works of history. This is not difficult to present, nor biased. What wording is being being proposed? ( Hohum  @ ) 11:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Original wording: "Official PRC history claims that at this point in the conflict a cultural relics market in the city of Dandong was bombed by the U.S. airforce, despite that no evidence exists of a bombing in the area at that time. Furthermore, its official position on the subject has been that the PRC's involvement in the war was primarily a response to "American aggression in the guise of the U.N.""
 * Revised wording: "Chinese claimed US bombed China during September/October as part of their reason to enter the Korean War."
 * Then all hell break loose about how this is censorship against Chinese....because it did not state how much damage the Chinese accused US caused, even through nobody proved that US was there in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, before people started to accuse me being an ignorant redneck (or educate me on how publishing a book with Chinese government consent is a dissident act, or how using People's Daily/Why We Fight as reliable history source is a practice that should be openly encouraged amongst new editors, or how ideological balance should trump fact), I have a copy of official Chinese history (ISBN 7-80137-390-1), published by PLA Academy of Military Science right in front of me. The official history devoted 66 pages (Chapter 2-4, 6, 9) on why they intervened in the war, while the topic of bombing during August and September is only covered by three and half pages as a subsection under chapter 6 (page 86-89)...not to mention there are histories other than official Chinese history...WP:WEIGHT, anyone? Jim101 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

How about something more along these lines, assuming reliable sources are available: China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN",(reference) along with a claim that the US bombed a market in Dandong, China on [date].(reference + note that reliable sources reject that an attack occurred [on that date]) ( Hohum  @ ) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are just run after the statement "Later, the Chinese claimed that US bombers had violated PRC national airspace while en route to bomb North Korea before China intervened.[131]"...wouldn't be better to just reword that statement to "Later, the Chinese claimed that US bombers had violated PRC national airspace on three separate occasions and attacked Chinese targets before China intervened. [PLA Academy of Military Science pp 86-89]"? As for the statement "China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN",(reference)" since even the official Chinese history did not present a direct link, wouldn't it better to be put it after the statement "On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force.", since according to official Chinese history, the Chinese started military preparation after US enter Korean War but before US "bombed" China? Jim101 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of activities for the last two days, I'm being bold and added the changes. If anyone still objects on the grounds of censorship, then they better come up with a wording with less than nine words per the weight calculation above (it is really a sad day in Wikipedia when math is brought in to calculate sentence length in order to settle WP:WEIGHT dispute...). Jim101 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

korean war
i am new but, i have a edit suggestion---

wiki's article 'korean war' has the war's casualty numbers. in it, number of american soldiers killed is seen as '36940 dead'. but in britannica.com article 'korean war' it is seen as '36568-american soldiers killed or wounded'.

Chukothesupreme (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalist
In the second paragraph of the summary ("The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides; the North established a communist government, while the South established a capitalist one."), I think describing the South Korean government as capitalist is incorrect, since capitalism is an economic system, not a political/governmental one. 69.174.58.132 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A good point, it probably should say Democratic rather than Capitalist though I'm not sure how truly democratic the South Korean government was at that time. While Democratic governments tend to go with capitalist economies they are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A country that has a democratic government system, which in practice was controlled by an dictator...anyone can find a technical term for that? Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just call it a "pro-capitalist" government?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because South Korean government aren't pro-"insert your economic system here"-ist, they are die hard nationalist not unlike Chinese KMT. Beside, we are talking about government systems, not economics. Jim101 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we are talking about both government systems and economics, since both were fundamental elements of the Korean conflict. I don't think it's necessary to get into particulars of party politics though. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want a breakdown:
 * Government: Nominally democratic, in practice dictatorial
 * Economic: Unknown (no studies on actual SK economy in 1950 was found during my research, for all I know it could be command, free or mixed)
 * Political Ideology: Nationalism, far-right wing, conservative and anti-Communism.
 * Take your pick. At least in North Korea we can pin number 1 and number 3 under Communism (maybe 2 if you are not a fan of political correctness). Jim101 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, South Korea had a capitalist economy! And the North was nominally democratic as well. I would suggest the South's government be called "pro-Western" or "anti-Communist" if "capitalist" is objected to. If you are interested in the economy of this period, it is described by Bruce Cumings (1997) as "state led capitalism" with most of the population being poor peasants. Much the same as it was after the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Korean Timeline Animated GIF
The animated map showing the changes in power over time is fantastic. However, per Wiki standards of remaining unbiased, I would argue that red and green are not the colors that should be used.

I immediately looked at it as the good guys vs. the bad guys, and it took me a moment to realize that I had done so.

I realize that's a picky point, but it definitely does convey a certain marketing of the north and south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.247.18 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Red is the colour typically associated with communism which is probably why it was chosen for the North, I'm not sure what the reason was for choosing green other than the fact that it contrasts well with red. I disagree with the conclusion that Green-Red logically equates to Good-bad, but any reasonably contrasting colour scheme would be just as good as far as I'm concerned. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In China/Soviet bloc countries, red is friendlies, blue is OPFOR...Jim101 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see the colors as being an issue. — Ed! (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed!; y'all are just overreacting. Anyway, if y'all think it's for the best, somebody can go ahead and change it to Blue-Red, Blue meaning United Nations, and Red meaning Communists. Y'all take care now, you hear? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath
The "Aftermath" section has a lot of material that relates to events 50 years after the war (90s famine in North Korea etc). When this is removed it is reverted. How can this be justified? The main article on the "Aftermath" is totally different.

The statement that "North Korea remains underdeveloped" is misleading. It has suffered severe shortages since the collapse of the USSR, but it is not underdeveloped by Asian standards. By some sources, South Korea only passed North Korea in the 1970s or 80s. But it seems pointless to add this in as it hardly relates the aftermath of the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Background Section
The "Background" section seems overly long and includes details not directly relevant (such as the Koreans killed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). While it is good to get this background, particularly to counterbalance a simplistic Cold War framework, the proportion of the article that it takes up is excessive. Compare it to the small Bombing of North Korea section. I think it could be shortened without detracting from its substance, particularly as readers can simply click links to main articles if that is what they want.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict Begins

 * In April 1950 Kim Il-sung travelled to Moscow and secured Stalin's support for a policy to unify Korea under his authority. Although agreeing with the invasion of South Korea in principle, Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead. In May 1950 Kim visited Beijing, and succeeded in gaining Mao's endorsement. At the time, Mao's support for Kim was largely political (he was contemplating the invasions of Taiwan and Tibet), and was unaware of Kim's precise intentions or the timing of Kim's attack. When the Korean war broke out, the Chinese were in the process of demobilizing half of the PLA's 5.6 million soldiers. Stalin created "detailed [war] plans" that were communicated to the North Koreans.

The last sentence sits oddly with the rest of the paragraph. If there is a disagreement among sources, we should say so. "Some say Stalin wasn't directly involved, some say he was." Alternatively, as I suspect, Soviet military advisers devised various war plans for the North Koreans to use in the event of war. In any case, the sentence is badly worded, and it's not clear who is being quoted.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no disagreement among the cited sources. Stalin "planned, prepared and initiated" the war (David Dallin). It was a "Soviet war plan" (David Rees). It was "preplanned, blessed and directly assisted by Stalin and his generals, and reluctantly backed by Mao at Stalin’s insistence" (Sergei N. Goncharov et al.). "Stalin had approved the North Korean attack" (William Stueck). "The detailed plans for the invasion were drawn up by the Soviets and then communicated to the [North] Koreans" (Douglas J. Macdonald). "Kim [Il Sung] got a green light from Stalin" (John Lewis Gaddis).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then that disagrees with the rest of the paragraph, which was what I was saying.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might contradict the part that says "Stalin refused to become directly involved in Kim's plans, and advised Kim to enlist Chinese support instead." However, that may depend on what is meant by "directly"--Stalin didn't overtly send troops to fight as did Mao.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Mao didn't send troops until the UN reached the Chinese border. And such a definition of "directly" could not be found in any dictionary. I think the paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity and coherence.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this is debatable. From a political perspective, while Sergei N. Goncharov et al. argued that Mao's main focus was trying to retake Taiwan while ignoring Korea, Chen Jian counter argued that since Mao's long term goal was to create a string of Chinese satellite states as a counter both Soviet Union and US, he was relative enthusiastic about the prospect of a Chinese friendly North Korean regime to invade South Korea. Militarily speaking, the Chinese army was mobilizing ever since July 1950, but the task of shifting a million strong army stealthily from Southern China to Manchuria was extremely difficult given the almost non-existent Chinese transport infrastructure, that it was not until April 1951 did all the intended Chinese units managed to enter Korea. So the slowness of Chinese involvement could be more hampered by inability than unwillingness. There are two sides to every story. Jim101 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But there does seem to be disagreement among those sources based on the brief quotes you have supplied: approval/green lighting is different from initiating. And planning is ambiguous. Is it contingency planning or planning for a specific war on a specific date? (And if the Soviet Union was so heavily involved in preparing for the invasion, why was it boycotting the UN on the day?)--Jack Upland (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They assumed South Korea would fall swiftly and did not expect outside intervention because the US had previously stated it would not defend South Korea. The sources which refer to a greenlight without mentioning war planning do not explicitly state that there was no such planning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet government would know the attack would come before the UN. With regard to the sources, I think you have to acknowledge what they say. Giving a green light is quite different from driving the car. I think the paragraph should say that Kim got support for the coming war but that there are differing accounts of what that support entailed. Bruce Cumings (1997), to the contrary of the sources you cite, suggests that the USSR told Kim not to start anything (p 251).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, as usual, he is in the minority.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Cumings is a particularly reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cumming is a famous, but a know revisionist, historian on the topic of Korean War, thus this falls under the scope of WP:Fringe. His view should be acknowledged, but it should not receive the same weight as mainstream scholars. Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

However, it is clear that there are a range of interpretations of Soviet involvement: provisional support, general support, a "green light", detailed planning, or initiating.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've revised this paragraph. It should be noted that Stueck portrays Stalin as being cautious about the idea and says in January 1950, after "pressure" from Kim he "finally gave him the go-ahead, contingent on Mao Zedong's approval... The initiative throughout was squarely on Kim's side." (p 31).  He also states that "Who started the firing" on 25 June "remains in doubt" (p 10).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading this article makes me cringe
Sure it's using sources but reading this you would think it was just only Americans in Korea. There were 20 other countries in the UN forces! But from reading this American-centric article it makes you think only Truman was calling the shots from the White House. What United Nations huh? This article is the reason why the Wikipedia model is failure. If the sources being "selected" are being chosen for their favourable slant toward the writers POV then how can it not be POV? It is quite clear from this article it's written to in a manner pandering to an American audience! Even the English is in American spelling. How can that be even be remotely encyclopaedic beyond the borders of the USA? If people in the rest of the English-speaking world wanted to read this US propaganda maybe they should subscribe to an American "YOU ESS AY, YOU ESS AY" military history publication?!

These articles should carry a contributors code (incl. IPs) showing who are doing the most on a given topic and from which countries! In that way, the whole geopolitical nature of these articles would be lain bare and readers would be able to make up their own minds to the veracity and "neutral" nature of the contents. This article would not look out of place in an American history high school textbook but for the rest of the world? Nah! Quite frankly this article is on the same level as the equivalent American view that WWII didn't start till Dec 7, 1941.

Will it change though? Of course not. The article's blocked to any editors who are not part of the cabal who control this site. I see the block started in March 2012 when someone tried to add Chinese sources that challenged an American's perception of the war. The miscreant was shouted down and an indefinite block was started (so much for the open-source site where "anyone can edit"). Well those who join the religion and don't have ideas outside the box. But as long as consensus is a cover word for POV editorial line, that is how it will stay. Still if Americans want to take ownership of this war then maybe they should all man-up and accept the reason the peninsular remains divided today. 86.148.205.202 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when does People's Daily equals Chinese POVs? Furthermore when did history becomes regional opinions, not well researched facts? Then if the other 50 odd countries made their own research materials a little more accessible to scholars (like Chinese/North Korea stops marking their archives as "state secrets", while South Korean and US archives stop "accidentally losing" their records), do you think this problem would exist in the first place? Do some research (like visit your local university library and read every book under DS918 section) before ranting about how history is unfair okay? Jim101 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Sure it's using sources but reading this you would think it was just only Americans  in Korea. There were 20 other countries in the UN forces!"

well, just look at the number of dead - 37 Americans dead for every Brit and after the Turks all the rest the ratios are 100 or more American dead for every 1 of whatever p!ss ant country you came from. After South Koreans, Americans did the vast majority of the fighting AND DYING in the Korean War on the U.N. side.

"But from reading this American-centric article it makes you think only Truman was calling the shots from the White House."

that's because he probably was, and rightly so.

107.37.207.53 (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good god. On an international encyclopedia, using terms like "p!ss ant countries" is ridiculous. If the article is written as a reflection of casualties, it should be almost exclusively centered on the Republic of Korea. I'd also point out that, as a reflection of the size of force, US casualties are much lower than those of other contingents from the same countries you charmingly referred to above. I certainly agree that the US should get a good proportion of the article without excluding everyone else, but at the end of the day if the starter wants to actually do something instead of chipping in from the sidelines, he should get an account and have a go himself. --Brigade Piron (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan as belligerent
Hello, I know that Taiwan offered military support (see Max Hasting's book on the Korean War) but it is my understanding that it was refused as "too provocative" (along with Cuba etc.) to the PRC? Taiwan is currently listed in the belligerents section. Could someone comment on this or offer any evidence to the contrary please? --Brigade Piron (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Taiwan never provided direct military support (means no boots on Korean soil, no shots fired in Korea) due to US rejection. But they did provided logistic and intelligence support. Right now I'm bit confused on what exactly constitute a "belligerent" in the infobox, since even countries provided few crates of supplies or civilian adviser are also counted as "belligerent". Jim101 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should trim this. There was a major discussion at Syrian Civil War about the same thing, and they basically decided that sides who didn't send ground troops in shouldn't be included. — Ed! (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know - they certainly did offer to send forces. Unlike Syria, this is both clearer cut and, since it is a historical event, less contentious to classify. I have added it to "other support" category. --Brigade Piron (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Korean War/Archive 8. I commented then that "...while we have various flags etc in the infobox, there doesn't seem to be a section in the actual text discussing the "multinational" forces in Korea", and sadly this still seems to be the case! It's probably best pulling out all but the major participants "and the UN" from here and linking to a detailed explanation in the main text. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly it may deserve an article of its own, noting different levels of involvement among different nations on each side. — Ed! (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. There is a Eight Nation Alliance article, and there is an article about the participants of the War on Terror; so I don't see why there cannot be a comprehensive Order of Battle for the United Nations Command. And look, there is already an article! So all we need to do is build upon it! As it wont be prose, it may not be something that we can put up for DYK, but if they IAR the work might be able to be put on the main page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think ground troops should be the criterion. That means air forces and navies would be excluded. Perhaps it should be combat forces.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

American casualties number
I understand that the UN Force numbers are all based on information from the Republic of Korea. That being said, some numbers do not match up, when I was doing research for the GAN Military history of Asian Americans article, and thus possibly a Contradict template candidate on both articles (Template:Contradict). Let me indicate the references below, with notations of contradictory information.

Deaths:
 * Present source (linked above) says that 36,940 is the correct count
 * This file from the United States Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center indicates that there are 36,572 deaths.
 * Yet this spreadsheet, also from the Defense Manpower Data Center, indicates that there were a total of 36,574 in-theater deaths, and 54,246 total deaths for the period (17,672 non-theater deaths).
 * This website hosted by the Public Broadcasting Service says that there were 33,700 US Deaths.

Wounded:
 * Present source says that 92,134 is the correct count
 * Yet the aforementioned spreadsheet indicates there were a total of 103,284 "wounded - not mortal"

Missing in Action
 * Present source says that 3,737 is the correct count
 * Yet the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office list the MIA count at 7,926

Prisoners of War Given these contradicting numbers, what should be used? I will notify related WikiProjects of this question, per WP:CANVASS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Present source says that 4,439 is the correct count
 * Yet the National Archive says that there were 4,717 American POWs
 * And the The Oxford Companion to American Military History placed the number at "more than 7,000" (also hosted at Answers.com) (added 04:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I think the most reliable source on the matter should be US DOD official figure, not ROK MOD's estimation. Jim101 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one though? There are two from the DoD with a 2 death difference between them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, someone got to find out what "non-theater death" means before we can reach an conclusion. My understanding is that 36,572 is caused by direct hostile action, while the extra 17,672 is caused by something else not exactly defined (non-combat casualty in Korea, or combat casualty outside of Korea, or non-combat casualty outside of Korea, or all of the above...anyone?). Jim101 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I digged around, and it appears that "non-theater death" is equivalent to non-battle death/casualties. Since all the data in the info box contain battle and non-battle death, the 54,246 death seems to be a more accurate number. Nevermind... Jim101 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there are objections I will modify the numbers in the infobox on 2 February 2013.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Without any objections heard, I have changed the numbers in the infobox, as I stated I would.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Strength v Total
I have noticed that there is an editing dispute regarding the figures which I have added. The number 14,198, was changed to match the quote from the British Embassy Pyongyang quote (87,000), which was reverted (which should have been the last reversion per WP:BRD (although not expressly stated in the edit summary), and the reversion was reverted. I have now added quotes that should multiple other references supporting the peak strength at 14,198 (with quotes).

The reason for the confusion is my fault. And this maybe the case with other strength numbers. I gave a quote initially only for the British Embassy Pyongyang as a way of recognizing all the British veterans of the conflict, something that cannot be easily done (without a major rewrite of the Military history of the United Kingdom which is primarily a list article at this point). I hope this clears up the confusion.

There are also multiple different numbers for the peak strength of United States forces, so given a search of those sources, I chose the one that appears to be given the most (with more recent data).

That being said I am concerned regarding the peak strength given for the Netherlands and Luxembourg numbers as that appears to be total veterans, and does not match other sources that I have found.

Also do we have more references for the strength of CCF, DPRK, and USSR forces?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Belgium and Luxembourg represent total. The peak strength varied so considerably for both that the figure would be meaningless. It certainly wasn't a consistent value throughout the war which is why I saw it as an improvement...Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were to go with totals, there are some sources that over 1 1/2 million Americans served in theater in the Korea War, that is a big difference given the references given for peak strength. Perhaps the content for the countries contributions to the UN Command, should reflect their peak strength in the infobox, for consistency, with a reference and a quote to give total veterans of the conflict from each country (as is presently the case with the UK contribution of forces).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Casualty?
Looking at the Battle of Pusan Perimeter article, I noticed that there was, it seems, at least a single Indian casualty in the War - Colonel Manakampat Kesavan Unni Nayar. However, he was not part of the ambulance unit sent to Korea (who, insofar as I can tell, did not take any losses) but was part of the United Nations Commission on Korea, killed when his vehicle struck a landmine during the fighting; would we include this in the losses?? Capt Jim (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as there is a reliable source to verify it, be WP:BOLD and add it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, unsourced, and completely outdated entry.
The line " In a February 2002 Gallup-Korea poll, two-thirds of South Koreans viewed the United States unfavorably" is completely bonkers. The link is to a San Fransisco Times article, not Gallup, and is only seen to allegedly quote a Gallup article I cannot even locate. This is nothing but than a game of telephone in which a third party is quoted to relay an alleged statement that isn't sourced. This is further compounded by many other articles that show contradictory results for the same year. Pew for example polled 53% having favorable feelings toward the US in Summer 2002, and favorability toward Americans at 74%. (http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/185.pdf)

Modern Statistics from 2011 by the BBC (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCEvalsUS_Mar11_rpt.pdf), who polled South Koreans viewing the United States with a 74% favorable, while Gallup and Pew put out very similar numbers that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Indeed, South Korea is among the most pro-American countries on the planet.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

End of War?
I am by far not an expert on the war of armed conflict, as my practice is domestic criminal law. But I thought the definition of an armastice was the cesation of actual engagements without terminating the state of war. Therefore, shouldn't the date of the war be June 1950 to present, with a mention that an armistace agreement was signed in 1953? Just a thought.67.193.18.186 (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most history books recognize the high intensity phase of the conflict between 1950 to 1953 as the period of the war. Although the DPRK and RoK are still technically at war, and low intensity events have occurred since the armistice was signed, most historians have kept those events separate from the war, although they are a technical continuation of the same conflict.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have discussed this issue numerous times already. This all stems from the lazy soundbite adopted by the media that "because the Korean War ended in an armistice not a peace treaty the two sides are technically still at war". This completely ignores the fact that many wars since WWII have not ended in a clear victory nor a peace treaty, but that does not mean that the war is not over - most modern wars don't start with a declaration of war either, but does that mean that a war hasn't started? For example the 6 Day War didn't end in a peace treaty but no-one says that Israel and Syria are still fighting it, particularly as the Yom Kippur War(regarded as a separate war) began 6 years later. The Korean Conflict is ongoing, the Korean War ended in 1953. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then a collapsed FAQ is in order to inform new editors of this article of past continued consensus regarding FAQs regarding this subject. Talk:United States has one for example regarding the naming issue of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, its getting tiresome having to reargue this issue every few monthsMztourist (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the Korean War technically be active once more, considering the DPRK has nullified the armistice they signed in 1953? 72.77.212.20 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the earlier lengthy discussions on this topic. The Korean War ended in 1953 - the North Koreans claim that they won and none of the US, China or South Korea claims that the war is ongoing - "technically" or otherwise, this is all just a lazy quote that the BBC insists on putting in every single story about North-South relations. If you read the KCNA website you will see that they always refer to starting a new war, not continuing an old one Mztourist (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Caption on the South Korea GDP graph
The caption on the last image on the page states that SK's GDP grew from "almost zero" to just under $1tn since the war. "Almost zero" is a phrase that is completely devoid of content in that context. For all it says it could mean a billion dollars, a thousand dollars, eight cents, anything really. Having looked at the data the graph is based on (linked from the description on the file's page) SK's GDP was $17.8bn in 1950 and $22.6bn 1953; the caption should be changed to include an actual figure such as "around $20bn". 137.205.238.203 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I used the 20bn figure. Thanks for pointing this out.  — daranz [ t ] 05:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Korean War
I wrote on the article that the Korean War had restarted due to the BBC saying that the North had entered into a "state of war". Please comment if this is alright or not because I'm not completely sure if this should be in one article or not. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If they ain't shooting at each other then they're not at war

219.90.160.156 (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

They are officially at war since a declaration of war has been made. I suggest there should be a separate article about this called "Second Korean War" or something similar.77.105.199.105 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is an overreaction. There was no peace treaty and the war never officially ended.  This is not the first time the armistice has been revoked by North Korea. And there have been numerous skirmishes since the end of the war. I think this belongs on the "North Korea" page and other pages dealing with current events.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree, this is a issue of recentism or would require usage of this template. I agree with JU that there is a place for this on Wikipedia, and maybe a sentence lower in the article (not in the lead) regarding this new declaration, but if armed large-scale conflict actually begins again than a new article would be needed, with a mention of the article here with a Wikilink to that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be Korean War 3 or Korean War III? Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) is considered the second part of the Korean War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.144 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013
In the picture illustrating the S. Korean economic growth since 1950, it would be wise to note that everyone except the politically connected in N. Korea live below the poverty line. The current wording suggests that the fault of rapid S. Korean economic growth is why folks in S. Korea still live in poverty. Poverty is a natural condition of mankind, so it is wonderful that capitalist economies exist that help a larger share of the population escape poverty. One could put it more succint like this: Everyone (except the connected) is equally miserable in North Korea, whereas in South Korea, there is much more potential for an individual to escape poverty.

76.93.186.60 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about the historical events of the Korean War, it should not be used as platform for commentary on the the ongoing socioeconomic climate of Korea. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed this edit request as I agree with the above comment. The OP has also provided no sources for the proposed edit. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Conscription
This is included under "Civilian Deaths & Massacres":
 * The Korean armies forcibly conscripted available civilian men and women to their war efforts.

It seems misplaced, as it doesn't deal with civilian deaths, and it seems rather non-notable. All conscription is forcible, and conscription is not uncommon in war. From both sides, the war posed the imminent takeover of the country. Neither side accepted that the recent border made the people on the other side foreigners. In their eyes they were conscripting their compatriots to fight for their country in a dire emergency.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. The point is that both North and South countries have officially recognized enemy side as their own land and citizens. But recognition are vary from person to person. So it's hard to assess "forced" conscription is proper or not. But the texts seem only accuses North. Did South do same conscription or not?--Syngmung (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All conscription is by definition involuntary. The lack of choice is what distinguishes conscripts from volunteers. In order to be effective conscription always requires some degree of compulsion; therefore "forced conscription" would be a redundancy. The question is what penalty a man who refused conscription would be subjected to. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question appears to be more relevant to the Prisoners of war section, than the Civilian deaths and massacres section. There appears to be a significant amount of controversy that has been documented in multiple reliable sources about the return/retention of POWs by both Koreas after the armistice. This can be seen by the content about the continued escaping of RoK soldiers from the DPRK decades after the armistice had occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The POW issue is related but different. I would say, delete this sentence and expand on the "democide" claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I agree with the word "forced" is redundant.--Syngmung (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian Troop Numbers
This article puts troop numbers at 2.200 or so while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_in_the_Korean_War puts the numbers at 17,000. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.11.146 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is due to the peak strength at any given time, and the total number of veterans who served during the conflict. Due to the rotational nature of most Commonwealth force deployments under the UNFK authority, more servicemember served in total, than were there at any given time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of Reversion
Please see WP:BRD. I had originally removed the content due to weight issues, after it was added here. Per BRD, the removal should have been left in place, and a discussion started. By re-adding the content after a BRD statement was made in the edit summary, this can be seen as the start of an edit war, which should be avoided.

I understand that the editor who added the content, and reverted the reversion, means well and is trying to highlight something they may believe is very important. However, highlighting a single event, especially with giving it additional weight of an image, where multiple events occurred, and not including any mentions of civilian killings by DPRK forces in the first stage (which lead to the Pusan perimeter being held by UN/RoK forces), gives undue weight to that single event and makes that section of the article non-neutral and places an undue negative light on the RoK.

I will notify MILHIST of this discussion, per WP:CANVASS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, not-bundling the references may meet WP:BOMBARD, which attempts to give the event an appears of having more significance in the entire conflict that it may actually have.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could say that as Seoul fell both sides were accused of committing massacres, and link to the "Civilian deaths and massacres" section?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it does place an "undue negative light on the ROK". Other South Korean atrocities, like the National Defense Corps Incident, are mentioned; as are North Korean concentration camps and famine. We don't need to shy away from these things, although the text in question was probably better in the "war crimes" section, which covers atrocities committed by all parties.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly, there is Civilian deaths and massacres section, however no need to remove big incident in the beginnig of the war, the texts are written in the stream of the war.--Syngmung (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is where it belongs, not in the course of the war. I agree with solution that Jack Upland proposed, lets move the University massacre, and the other massacres in the appropriate section, and leave it out of the section which chronologically notes the course of the military actions, and territorial control, during the conflict war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The texts are written in the section "Course of the war", the section name is not defining only the battles. Civilian deaths and massacres section is under the "Characteristics" section. Those incidents belong both sactions. Removal lower the course of the war.--Syngmung (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please see WP:UNDUE, the image unnecessarily gives on event unneeded weight given the multiple notable events where civilians were killed by either side of the combatants. Furthermore, to spend an entire paragraph on one event when the major event was the invasion of the Southern part of the Korean Peninsula by the DPRK should be the focus of the section causes the section to appear disjointed. Did that single event have a major impact on the DPRK invasion? I do not think so.
 * Does the University massacre have a major impact on the DPRK invasion? I do not think so.
 * Does the decision to destroy a bridge with civilian refugees have an impact? I would say yes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have the phot north korean troops entry in Seoul, the phot is better than present one. North korean atrocity is less incident than bodo league, however, if omit north one only South seems devil.--Syngmung (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bombing of the bridge is very important incident, the South Army left in north side of river run out supplies and collapsed soon, refugees were blow out without announce. i think if US commanded the operation never occurred such a thing.--Syngmung (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is this website from a DPRK point of view, which has an image of "KPA liberators".
 * There is also this book which covers the DPRK initial invasion.
 * All this being said having the mention of these events, outside of the bridge destruction, changes the focus of the section, and gives undue weight to the events where the invasion by the DPRK and its movement towards Pusan should be the primary focus of the section. Furthermore, having two images of the bodo league massacre gives undue weight to that single event over the dozens of events that occurred during the war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You know good pictures, but please upload commons or bring the pictures from commons. The text contents seems due weights for me. But Brith good deed which I have inserted can be moved, cos other countries may have done too and I hope so.--Syngmung (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So there is no consensus to keep the material which was added by Syngmung, and no consensus to remove the content, but why the image? There is already an image of the event lower in the article, why is the event SO significant that it needs an image in this section? What no images of the KPA killing civilians? What no images of the KPA forcing south koreans to fight for them? Again, UNDUE weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with RCLC; it's undue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments? I dont think the present picture is best. If you bring better picture of the beginning of the war, I would support with great pleasure. Need no complaint. Need some effort.--Syngmung (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the consensus above, I have removed the image. This still leaves the paragraph; that being said, removing the image does reduce the weight of the paragraph in question, perhaps the references can be bundled to reduce the over citing that gives the sentence the appearance of greater significance than it really has on the impact of the DPRK invasion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You havent gotten consensus. You are only complaining. The phot and texts are valuable of the beginning of the war, cos you have not brought better ones. Why are you trying to make small big incident of the begining of the war.--Syngmung (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreChanging and myself are in agreement that the image gives undue weight to the event, this makes a consensus as only Syngmung demands the image remain. I understand that Syngmung reverting the removal per consensus is done with the best of intentions, however having reverted a BRD removal of content in the past, being uncivil per WP:AVOIDYOU, and now this, it could be argued that Syngmung rather than civilly discussing the content which was removed, has began to engage in disruptive editing.
 * I would rather de-esculate this discussion rather than progressing to further measures, but that would require Syngmung to be willing to compromise.
 * The compromise I think I can agree to is removing the image, and bundling the citations, as to reduce the undue weight caused by the over citation of a single event, which attempts to give a single event larger importance that it really has on the overall course of the conflict. I am not saying that the event is not notable, however in the context of the ENTIRE conflict and the DPRK invasion of the peninsula south of the 38th parallel the Bodo League massacre has very little impact on the invasion. Therefore, including the image is entirely WP:UNDUE, and per WP:NEU, should not be included in the section where the removal was reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this fails undue, not only for positioning but for content: overemphasis on one side. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to increased consensus that the image creates undue weight for the event, I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast  (talk • contribs)  07:09, 14 April 2013

The Bodo massacre and the Seoul National University hospital massacre, as horrible as they were, do not really belong in the section regarding the start of the war. The conduct of the initial stages of the war, the political context, the complex relationship between the communist leaders (Stalin, Mao and Kim) should receive much more space here.

Massacre of civilians were all too common during the war. I was almost certain that there were far more killings by North Koreans and South Korean communists during the time they controlled most of the peninsula based upon what people who survived the war told me. The large number of people killed during the Bodo massacre was a surprise. In any case, the section on atrocities against civilians seems to be the correct place for that content, not the beginning of the war on June 25. Hanhwe.kim (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the structure, which divides the Course from the Characteristics. There is always going to be an argument for destroying this division and for keeping it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So the question remains, should these events that lead to civilian deaths be included in the section they are presently, or moved down to the section where civilian deaths is its primary focus?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The atrocities in first stage of the war characterize Korean war. The contents are written in stream of the war, no need to specify only battles. --Syngmung (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The atrocities do characterize the Korean War but putting two massacres here does not provide enough context. The Bodo massacres may have begun around June 28 but most of the killings seem to have occurred much later. I am not certain how far the Truth and Reconciliation Commission got in investigating the involvement of Syngman Rhee himself, but the killings seem to have been orchestrated by right-wing elements of the South Korean military police and leadership. The Seoul National University Hospital massacre was probably the work of a particularly thuggish North Korean General, Ryu Kyoung-Soo, who was disliked even by his comrades and suspected of many other killings of prisoners. There were also many People's Courts in North Korean occupied Seoul which resulted in a Reign of Terror for Seoul residents - probably many more people were killed by these courts than at the hospital. The roots of such violence go back to the guerrilla war in South Korea (Jeju, Yeosu-Soonchon, the fighting in Jiri-san and other areas) and the Soviet's policy of terrorizing "undesirables" such as Christians into leaving North Korea. None of such context is properly reflected by mentioning Bodo and SNU massacres here. If Syngmung insists on mentioning the massacres here, then there should be a short paragraph or sentence (e.g. "There were many atrocities against civilians throughout the war by both North and South Koreans and they seem to have begun as soon as fighting began.") with a "See also" link to the detailed section on War Crimes and massacres of civilians. -- Hanhwe.kim (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do like the solution offered by Hanhwe.kim.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hanhwe.kim's comments seems OR.--Syngmung (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved the text to the section on War Crimes. Please clean up the flow and wording. -- Hanhwe.kim (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At least, Rhee order should be written in the course of the war.--Syngmung (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OR only pertains to the article space, we are all entitled to our opinions, and it helps that we can civilly express those opinions, as long as OR is not including in the articlespace, that is what matters.
 * IMHO, the Rhee order is best in the civilian deaths section IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Syngmung. I thought you said my comments were "OK" and were in agreement with moving the references to Bodo and SNU atrocities to the War Crimes section. Hanhwe.kim (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the issue of placement that Rhee ordered the Bodo Massacre, the charge is a very serious allegation against Syngman Rhee and I was hoping there was a better citation for it than OhMyNews. The credibility of the South Korean papers is rather dismal (even the major papers are as objective as Fox News) and a scholarly source would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. I was hoping to find a document on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's web site but could not find any. Thanks -- Hanhwe.kim (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the reference of Rhee's order from "Historical Dictionary of the Korean War". The order should be written in course of the war. Thanks.--Syngmung (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

By duplicating content in both sections Syngmung is creating an undue weight situation, I shall remove the content from the The war begins (June 1950) section per WP:NEU & WP:BRD. Please do not re-add it without getting consensus on what should go there, if anything at all. His reversion of Hanhwe.kim removal of the content was without reasoning in the edit summary and IMHO improper.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thoughout the discussion, RightCowLeftCoast are only complaining and have no compromise. I did compromise and respond others' demands. I still think the order should be written in the course of the war.--Syngmung (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus supporting the undue weight inclusion of the Bodo Massacre twice in this article. I do agree that it belongs in this article, it clearly falls under the scope of this article, but there is a consensus that it should not be included in the area where Syngmung insist that it is. I am not saying it should not be in this article, but there is a section of the article that focuses on Civilian Deaths during the conflict/war/civil war. There is no need for it to be given in-depth mention twice in this article. Please follow BRD, it was boldly added, it was removed per BRD. Follow BRD and if consensus changes that it should be included twice (with nearly duplicate content) then consensus will support that, right now consensus does not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The largest massacre in Korean history was ordered in beginning of the war. This is very important. This should be writen in the course of war. I and others have compromised for consensus, but you not. Why are you arguing this as undue weight? And you dont have slight compromise.--Syngmung (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are these others? There is no consensus for it being included in the course of the war. I have not seen others recently voicing their opinion other than the editor above believing that consensus supports inclusion of the event twice in this article, please see WP:SILENCE.
 * Recently Hanhwe.kim, and myself support it being mentioned in the Civilian Deaths section, and Syngmumg is the only editor who has supported it being mentioned twice. There was a prior consensus of TheTimesAreChanging and myself who have supported the position that having the image of the massacre in the course of the war gives the event undue weight, especially since there is also an image in the Civilian Deaths section, and only Syngmung supports it being in the course of the war section (and thus having two images of the event in this article).
 * I am not opposed to the massacre being mentioned in this article, but to mention it twice in a paragraph length gives the event undue weight. I have not seen arguments to see why it isn't that have refuted that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * RightCowLeftCoast dont understand. There are compromise except RightCowLeftCoast. The photo have been omitted and paragraph length shorten. Should be kept the order existance in the course of the war. What is the course of the war? Only battles? nonsense. Coure of the war is Course of the war. Major ivent should be written in. This is not undue weight. Do RightCowLeftCoast believe some little battles more due weight than the order of bodo league massacre?--Syngmung (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The above is difficult to understand.
 * The shortened statement is far preferential to what was included before. Should we also included verified events of NKA killings of civilians as well? Why only include specific events of RoK killings of civilians? See how this creates an undue weight situation in the section?
 * I removed some references per WP:BOMBARD, if multiple references are used please bundle citations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont know well about NK crimes. But I think NK crimes should be written, so I have inserted Seoul University massacre commited by NK and the NK crime phot. If you know the NK other crimes, bring the sources and improve the contents. I like efforts, but not complaints.--Syngmung (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In reply to Syngmung above, I am not certain if consensus means "unanimous" in Wikipedia editing, but Syngmung seems to be the only one insisting that the Bodo Massacre be included in the section on the course of the war. I believe any reference to Bodo should be moved to the War Crimes section. Not to belittle the importance of it, but because the Course of the War section should focus upon the miltiary and political struggle prior to the US intervention. Unlike Syngmung, I do believe this section should be limited to the major battles, and any relevant political dimension. I think this section should focus upon the following (in this order of priority):


 * 1) The KPA almost won the war that first week when it routed the South Korean forces and took Seoul. Destruction of the South Korean forces was the prime objective of the North Korean battle plan. Taking Seoul was a huge military and political victory for the North Koreans. I believe there are some references that say the North Koreans expected people in South Korea to rise in revolt and the war to be concluded when this happened.


 * 2) The Battle of Ongjin is important because that is where the fighting started and was a point of controversy for years regarding the question of who started the war (before the Soviet documents were declassified).


 * 3) Rhee abandoning Seoul and the demolition of the Han River bridge while refugees were crossing was militarily significant because it stranded many South Korean troops on the North bank of the Han and contributed to the destruction of the ROK Army. It also symbolizes the desperation and poor leadership on the South Korean side the first week.


 * The massacres and atrocities, as horrific as they were, are not directly related to the military and political struggle between North and South Korea the first week of the war. Unless the Bodo massacre served a political purpose the first week of the war (which it probably did not since the killings took place over a period of months after Rhee is alleged to have ordered the killings) it does not belong here. It may be the largest massacre in South Korean history but killing kids along with their families did not have a military or political purpose let along any necessity - which is precisely why it is atrocious.


 * I have left mention of Bodo in the section for now, but moved it to a separate paragraph rather than mixing it in with the military battle for Seoul. I will leave it for Syngmung to remove. Hanhwe.kim (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * About Bodo league, Hanhwe.kim comments seem OR. Why are you so dislike the bodo leage in the course of the war. I think it comes from your political slant, you have strong anti North and love South sentiment. On the contrary, I created NK crimes such as Seoul University massacre and Hill 303 massacre. Hill 303 massacre became featured article with the help of some users. I dont have political tendency between NK and SK. Be neutral.--Syngmung (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Syngmung, first, OR(Original Research) refers only to content in the article page, not here in the talk page(see WP:NOR). We do not include cites in this page. This page is for discussion. Second, if political slant were the issue, I would not be helping you find more credible sources regarding the Bodo Massacre than OhMyNews. I certainly would not be spending time trying to navigate the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission's web site - Official South Korean web sites are not designed with usability/searchability in mind!


 * The reason other editors and myself dislike mentioning the Bodo League massacre in this section is because it is off-topic. The main story here should be how the KPA almost won the war that first week, and how it almost won the war in spite of American intervention the following weeks. Including a single line that Rhee ordered the Bodo Massacre on June 28 is not helpful in clarifying the military and political struggle from June - July 1950. What was its significance in military or political terms? To include a full explanation of the context will add even more digressions from the topic. That is the reason we think that details of the massacre should be in its separate section.


 * We did not want the SNU hospital massacre or the Hill 303 massacre in here either. We certainly do NOT want to include the various atrocities by leftists (People's Courts, execution of landlords/officials, forced disappearance of intellectuals) in this section either. Trying to add proper explanation for these would add even more digression from the main topic in this "course of war" section. The things that belong in this section are the goals and plans of each side and how they were executed. Trying to explain that is complicated enough.


 * The only reason for including a massacre in this section would be if it had military or political significance and had an effect on the outcome of the struggle. Bodo, SNU Hospital, Hill 303, as horrific as they are, do not have any such significance - which is precisely why they are atrocities. There was no political or military necessity in killing children, wounded soldiers and disarmed POWs. Neutrality means more than just listing the sins of both sides. Providing the best factual evidence and the mainstream interpretations(regardless of politics) and proper context goes beyond just listing the wanton killings each side committed.Hanhwe.kim (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)