Talk:Korean War

Collapsible lists

Hi.

Just wanted to say that it'd be better if the collapsible medical and other support lists would be non-collapsible and expanded by default, as, otherwise, content is simply missed by the viewer at first glance and it would be better for visibility.

Consistency of findings of National Defense Corps incident

As a neutral lay-reader:

The "National Defense Corps Incident" page says that "...and tens of millions of won was misappropriated to President Rhee Syngman's political fund." with a valid reference: [국민방위군 사건 (in Korean). National Archives of Korea. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2010.]

Yet on topic this page, under section "Starvation" it says Rhee Sygman was not involved. This is inconsistent or misleading. I suggest the quote above plus reference be added to the end of the relevant paragraph in this section.

There is NO details of casualties

You removed the details of casualties, such as how many American soldiers were killed, how many Chinese soldiers were killed. The numbers may NOT be 100% correct. But after you removed those details, that makes this page very low standard. It is like you even do not know you should provided those data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyresearcher20233 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The details of casualties are in the article. See this discussion and consensus reached there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you the writer of the article? It is the worst article in Wikipedia. This article is about a war, and gives no information casualties.

You said "he details of casualties are in the article. See this discussion...", can you write an article as formally as others do?

And the so called "discussion" is a mess. Weblink2090 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

According to German histories of the war the number of North Korean dead is around 500,000 and Chinese around 600,000 with the South suffering over 400,000 dead and the UN some 50,000 mostly Americans. The 600,000 number comes from a book, I can't remember which, on the war where a Chinese General had admitted to his Hungarian counterpart, a man who had spent the war in North Korea and China, that "The PLA did't do as well as we thought it would. We actually lost many more soldiers than we claimed to have. it was more like 600,000 killed fighting against the Imperialists." I hope that helps. FaladaHart78 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

German are not the only historians, and which german historians? Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That really helps faladahart78! thanks! i needed it for my 10 paragraph essay. i used my own words and i needed to know about how many were killed! thanks! 2605:59C8:625A:F510:5655:5665:8DD4:5A3A (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claims that an anonymous Wikipeida user read from a book written by a random German man that heard from a random Hungarian man that allegedly heard from a random Chinese man are about as useful as used toilet paper. In particular the estimate for Chinese is accurately known to be close to 150k. Biosaurt (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You said, "In particular the estimate for Chinese is accurately known to be close to 150k."

(1) The Manchuria conquered the "powerful" Chinese Ming Empire, and ruled China for 300 years till 1911. The population rate was 1:100, 1 million Manchurian and 100 million Chinese.

(2) In 1900, The Eight-Nation Alliance took Beijing, and lost only 60 soldiers.

Battle of Peking (1900) , Wikipedia

Eight-Nation Alliance, Wikipedia

(3) In 1937, Japan invaded China, Japan took the Chinese capital and lost only 2000 soldiers.

Battle of Nanking, Wikipedia

Nanjing Massacre, Wikipedia Imahere5679 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is better, but you still need to make it formally,this article is one of the worst one in wiki, you just need to make a formal section of the details of casualties. Imahere5679 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

add a reference Zlukeeramo (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Where? Liu1126 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024 (2)

add a reference Zlukeeramo (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Add section to Background Section -Prelude to War

Current Background-Prelude to War section paints US/USAFIK analysis concerning possible NK-SK war as one-sided and overly-optimistic. That is not matched by the historical record.

Suggest additional paragraph:

Many US policymakers did not share this optimistic assessment of South Korean military capabilities against a North Korean offensive. State Department cables throughout late 1949 and early 1950 noted the differential in military power, especially in terms of equipment, airpower, and training/experience. This pessimism was shared by legislators in Washington. Senator Tom Connally (https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Tom_Connally), Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, noted in an interview with US News and World Reports that "I’m for Korea. We’re trying to help her—we’re appropriating money now to help her. But South Korea is cut right across by this line—north of it are the Communists, with access to the mainland—and Russia is over there on the mainland. So that whenever she takes a notion she can just overrun Korea just like she probably will overrun Formosa when she gets ready to do it. I hope not, of course." (https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950v07/d31) Max.Steiner1985 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

By deletion based on subjective value judgment

https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=1225261668

I would like to hear the opinion of the person who deleted the part about what the problem is. If there is no reasonable reason, we request restoration.

"We"? Reasons, A, it fails wp:undue as this is a minor part of the wider war (and some of it not even about the war). B, These sources do not look like wp:rs (both reasons given in the edit summary). Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Then, can I go and record another article with similar quality sources and content? For example, the same source was used in the Battle of Paro Lake, and although it is older, the conclusion is similar to the history of the Korean military and the U.S. military. OnlyFanK (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean, but any content added to any article must be relevant to that article. So something that is not about the US army can't be added to an article about the US army. wp:v means the source must "explicitly" make such a connection (in other words not your own wp:or making the connection). Also other polices (such as those mentioned) come into play, so one academic making one claim may fail undue. Also you can ask to make an edit here to another article, you must ask there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In what I wrote about Korea, I used only Korean sources and made no mention of the U.S. military. OnlyFanK (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why did you mention it here? as I said you need to discuss changes to any other articles there, and not ask permission here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So, if I delete the sources of such articles like you did, is there any problem? OnlyFanK (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You have already been told you can't discuss edits to other articles here, this is my last reply to that question. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, there's nothing you can do, right? Well, I understand. Even if other articles say so, what on earth is the standard? Be sure to explain it accurately. Can't I use any sources other than those already used in this article? OnlyFanK (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I said. So I oppose your suggested additions as they may well fail some or all of the policies I have listed, you have not made a case they do not. So with that, I can't say any thing any clearer than I have. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution and the contributions of others like you, I don't think the differences in opinion will change much here. I don't think there's a big problem with my actions, but the wiki people will take care of it. OnlyFanK (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:OnlyFanK you seem to be adding all sorts of information about supposed prejudice against people from Jeolla province to this page. As Slatersteven has already told you this is wp:undue, largely unrelated to the war and not based on WP:RS. Stop making these edits. I note that you have made similar edits on the Jeolla Province page, if your changes deserve to be anywhere (which I doubt) it is there. Mztourist (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not prejudice, it is fact, and I have written that during the Korean War, people from Jeolla Province and others were also discriminated against by Korea's ruling elite. This is clearly included in the sources I brought about Korean history. And is the historical discrimination against Jews also prejudice? OnlyFanK (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly pushing a WP:POV which does not belong on this page for the reasons already stated above. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:OnlyFanK, there is a WP:ONUS to gain consensus for challenged material. This has been opposed for WP:P&G reasons stated. This isn't the place to PUSH this POV. If you have not already, you should read and become familiar with the policy that has been linked in this discussion as you appear to be NOTHEARING what has been said and why. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If we do not respond further here, it does not imply our consent to re-add the material. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox images are misaligned

As title, the main infobox's images are now misaligned, leading to staggered and large borders around each image. I think someone added an image (yet again from a Western source). See this thread on this talk page; there are too many photos from purely SK/Western sources already, we need more Chinese/North Korean photos represented in the article. I'd advocate for undoing the swapped image altogether; the added image doesn't add much understanding, it's now misaligned, and we still lack Chinese/NK perspective. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEADIMAGE, It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Per WP:COLLAGE, Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. As there has been some recent discussion about the suitability and placement of images used for this collage, I would observe that the placement of these images togeather is not necessary and that the collage here is primarily decorative in function and intent. In searches for images related to the Korean War, this image of a girl carrying a small child appears recurrently. That would tend to evidence that this particular image is closely associated with the Korean War (perhaps even iconic of the war) and is well suited to being a lead image. I have therefore BOLDly added this as the lead image. I would observe that the nationality of the tank in the background and its model are largely immaterial to the impact of the image and are unnecessary in respect to the caption. I could not find a link to the location. A link for a nearby location or corresponding event might be useful context. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not agree that the images are primarily decorative; I think there is fundamental value to having images that quickly show both significant and representative moments (a picture being a thousand words etc etc).

  I also don't agree with the girl as the main image. For image placement, to my understanding, we have more leeway on Wikipedia than just whichever image is most commonly associated with something. We can make editorial decisions about what adequately conveys meaning about topics. The picture is striking but not necessarily representative of the conflict, which was large and diverse. A collage I think is suitable for a war of this magnitude. As a weaker supporting argument, similar collages exist for other similar wars (although I'm aware that precedence isn't everything). 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The image of the girl is great photojournalism but does not show the extent of population displacement. If there are more representative images, they would be an improvement. The C-119 in the collage is not essential either. Among the additional images suggested in the past, these two are relevant and not too grainy. Senorangel (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be ok if we displayed the first of the two images for now. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  

  The purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. The lead image should carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. A good lead image is therefore one that is closely associated with the topic in the collective consciousness. This is quite different from trying to represent different aspects of the subject through a collection of pictures. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us we should not try to write the article in the infobox. This applies equally to text and images. Mutiple images stacked togeather are smaller and more difficult to see, while extensive captioning bloats the infobox when WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok I find parts of your arguments more convincing now, but to understand your reasoning better, how do you feel about the collage in the infobox in World War II? Would you rather it not be there? I know WWII and the Korean War are not comparable in scale, but just wondering how you feel about these kinds of collages in general. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The short answer is that I would rather it not be there - particularly as it stands. These smaller images loose definition and too many images crammed into a small space become visual noise and a distraction rather than a benefit. It is another attempt at a photo essay. We might better think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. A strong criterion for an emblematic image is one which is sufficiently recognisable that it could probably exist without a caption to explain why it is there. Only two come close to this - the A bomb and the flag over the Reichstag. But I don't think either of these are the most emblematic. The Stalingrad image could be any pile of rubble at almost any time and the battleships line-astern are not particularly WW2. The planes in the picture are not clearly recognisable as Stukas. The inverted gull-wing is not clear in the photo and they were not the only planes of the era with fixed landing gear. The German cross on the nearest plane is the clearest indication of what they are. The Matildas in the desert are emblematic - of the north African campaign. In general, a montage as a lead image is like a camel - a horse designed by committee. The WW I infobox is a clear fail IMO too - the tank on its own would be better - though not necessarily the best. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ok that all makes sense to me, and it seems to me to align with the interpretation of the guidelines you present, although a few points I need to think on some more. In fact, I just realized that your comment articulates what I subconsciously disliked about the WWII and WWI infoboxes. Still, I'm conflicted; I think collages are useful and that human attention spans can handle more pictures than just one. Granted, six or seven, maybe too many. When I run into these collages, I click and scroll through these pictures and usually find them really helpful in understanding things. I may need to do some reading about when these guidelines were enacted before I'd ok removing the collage here; also I can imagine people will push back against this, possibly for the same reason I present. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not saying the picture of the girl is bad. But it is not the best either. To me it seems slightly staged. The girl stopped in front of the stalled tank in order to turn toward the camera. In the collage, the only two images most people would recognize as Korean are probably Incheon landing and Namdaemun gate. Senorangel (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Per the discussion thread immediately above this, replace the image of the plane dropping bombs with this one: Commons:File:Tank unit of the Korean People's Army enters the streets of Seoul while being welcomed by the Korean people, 1950.jpg. The size of the pic could optionally be recropped to fit well with the other pics in the collage, but less important. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A grainy propaganda photo? No. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a propaganda spreader. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I can understand the disagreement. For others reading, I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I'm toobigtokale from elsewhere on this page; I've written pretty blisteringly about pretty much every major relevant country to this war. I just believe we need to get more Chinese/NK photos into the article as per the above talk thread, but I was too hasty. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are you editting from an IP? Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User talk:104.232.119.107#My activities on an IP 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're trying to wean yourself off WP using an IP is unlikely to help, also if you use an IP other Users can see where you're editting from. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback, I've already considered those factors. If you'd like to discuss my IP please do so on my IP talk page; let's reserve this page for Korean War article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Union of soviet socialist republics "unofficial"belligerent

can someone provide a reference to this? "Soviet Union (unofficial)" UnsungHistory (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong image description

The third image is described as "The Seoul city gate Namdaemun, damaged", as the image comes from the archive with that description. However, it is not the Namdeamun gate that is on the picture but the Janganmun, the northern gate of Suwon, that was destroyed in the . Namdaemun did not get destroyed like that during the war. See National Museum Of Korean Contemporary History (much.go.kr) for some additional colored pictures of both the Namdaemun and Janganmun from different angles. Seovin (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)