Talk:Korean War/Archive 3

message: A sentance in section 2.1 caught my attention as a possible typo: "The South Korean Army had 65,000 soldiers armed, trained, and equipped by the U.S. military, and as a force was deficient in armor and artillery."
The term seems out of place. Did someone mean to add efficiant? I'm not exactly a Korean War scholar so I'm not exactly equipped to alter it myself, so I figure I'd bring it to the attention of the Wiki-folk.Reason turns rancid 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably means they weren't well equipped with armor or artillery, or if they were well equipped, then not very proficient with it, but I could be wrong. Parsecboy 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/KW-Outbreak/outbreak.htm, at the bottom of Page 6. It states "The South Korean armed forces had no tanks, no medium artillery, and no fighter aircraft or bombers." wbfergus 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed. Parsecboy 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small error (?) 

message: I've just finished copyediting the Republic of China section and simply can't make out what this para is trying to say. If you wrote it (or understand it!) please let me know, or copyedit it yourself, before reinstating it. Thanks.
As the PVA rotated about 2 million troops during the war, the casualty figures of some Western sources might, at first glance, seem excessive. For example, if the PVA had suffered 500,000 casualties (1/4 of all troops rotated) or 1,000,000 casualties (1/2 of all troops rotated), one might think that the PVA would have been so weakened that they would not have been able to defend the line, let alone mount any meaningful offensive, and since the battle line hardly shifted from 1951 to 1953, the untrained eye might think that the U.N. and Chinese, because they enjoyed a similar lack of progress, endured a relative parity of losses such that the high casualty figures should be regarded with skepticism. However, the western forces suffer a disadvantage in air power, logistics, morale and manpower reserves. 
mikaultalk 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary removal of a confusing paragraph 

message: I've decided to take the job of Archiving threads older than 3 days, and move this absurd discussion(?) to another page.Thank you.Kfc1864 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving(for once,stop this discussion or move it to another space

message: If all the parties agreed,I recommended Requests for arbitration.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, one takes a dispute before a mediator or 3rd opinion, before going straight to arbitration. I'd prefer to use either of those two options before arbcom. Parsecboy 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emm,which to choose?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just read the 3rd opinion page a little more closely, and it's generally for a dispute between two editors, so a mediation would be the best option. Parsecboy 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok,We directly go to mediation--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never filed a request for mediation, though I know wbfergus did, for this issue earlier, so perhaps he'd be the best one to do it. Parsecboy 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you see the discussion page, there are also suggestions that Third Opinion can be used for articles where multiple editors are involved. As long as there are two sides to it, I think it's ok to use Third Opinion. This is what I did on template:History of Manchuria, though unfortunately the disputants there just ignored it and continue to argue for their preferred version. After Third Opinion, I think the next step should be Mediation. Then if that still doesn't work, do a RfC User Conduct on Ksyrie, and that will lead to an arbitration, I think. Arbitration in Wikipedia is conducted on users, not the article's contents. Cydevil38 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input; I've never done an arbitration, and did not know that. Whatever the group here decides to do, be it 3rd opinion or mediation is fine by me. Parsecboy 01:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for arbitration

message: Maybe we need one, to be corresponding to WWI,II and the RUSSO-JAPAN War.Kfc1864 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea; I suggest the photo of that is currently the main photo, the photo of the MiG-15 (unless a better photograph of aerial combat between MiGs and Sabre/Shooting Star jets can be found) and the one of trucks crossing the 38th Parallel. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about making any of these kinds of pictures, but i'll give suggestions when I read the article  now.Kfc1864 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe the pics you said, the landing at Inchon picture, and the pictur of Chinese returning.Kfc1864 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. I was looking for pictures of Chinese or NK soldiers on the commons, but couldn't find any. Do you want to put it together or do you want me to try? I've never done one of these either. One thing we'll have to be careful about is what licensing we put it under (although they should all be public domain pictures, if they're from the work of the US government). Just one thing to consider. Parsecboy 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just one thing: How do you put these pictures together?Kfc1864 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I would just save them all to my computer and put them into paint or another program and put them together that way. Parsecboy 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put one together here. Let me know what you think. It's not set in stone or anything, so we can rearrange the pictures or use different ones if people would prefer that. I'll hold off on putting it on the infobox for the moment, until you and anyone else who's interested comment on it. Parsecboy 12:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Kfc1864 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Parsecboy 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not to sure about the aircraft picture, it's a bit blurry. Have you looked at commons:Korean War? Maybe something there might be better. wbfergus 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but there aren't really any good alternatives. The images on the Korean War commons page under the "Aerial Warfare" heading are all piston-engined aircraft from WWII, nothing that is distinctly from the Korean War. I also checked the articles for the MiG-15, F-86 Sabre, and the F-80 Shooting Star for a good image, but those are primarily images from test runs, and then from air shows and museums and the like. Nothing really usable. Perhaps we can find a better image in a book or online. It would automatically be public domain if it's from a gun camera. Parsecboy 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found one that's semi-decent at  of some B-26's (propeller driven) dropping bombs on North Koren. About the best I see for the F-86 is . The caption reads "Capt. Joseph McConnell Jr., a pilot with the 51st Fighter Intercepter Wing, talks with his crew chief while in the cockpit of his F-86 Sabre jet, "Beauteous Butch." McConnell became the 27th jet ace of the Korean conflict March 9, 1953. (U.S. Air Force photo)" wbfergus 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I'll be happy to offer elp on the problem here. I saw your request on the military history talk page. Mr. Killigan 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. You can get a "background" on the issue by reading :Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion or Talk:Korean War/CCD. Thanks. wbfergus 10:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think Kfc1864's move of the discussion to the CCD page essentially ended the issue. Kysrie, the only one who is objecting to the page as it stands now, seems to have dropped the issue. The page as it stands now essentially is the original, just slightly altered in format. Kysrie initially attempted to remove the US estimate of Chinese casualties, and failing that, attempted to place the Chinese estimate of American casualties, which apparently didn't last long. I agree that it's not that big of a deal, but on the other hand, I won't sit idly by while someone tries to make the article conform with what is essentially Chinese propaganda. Parsecboy 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No,I didn't drop.As Mr.Killigan had stated,the current version reflects too many American view points.Taking two issues,the American and UN casualities and Chinese casualities.For all you can see from the talk page,the American sources about the American casualities and UN casualities even can make a clear and affirmative figure,there are 3 major American figures for American casualities each differed themselves alot,and for the Amercian estimation for UN casualities,things goes worse,from the biggest number is 400% more than the smallest number.So I question when the American sources couldnt give their own figures a clear and affirmative views,how can their estimate of chinese casualites be taken granted to add into the infobox for chinese casualities?And when I tried to add the chinese and north korean estimate for the american casualites,someone just simply remove it and claiming the absolute right for american sources,it really astonish me a lot.The discussion pages are filled with chauvinist and nationalist claims such as not to please the chinese or simply the biased illusion.Someone even don't look carefully the american source,when they read a phrase such as the PVA emploied superior strength to attack the frontal line,while infiltrate to the flank and cut off the main supply route,they just scissor the first half of sentence to add weight to their claim,while completely ingonring the latter half of sentence.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He also said that It will not take you very far here.Kfc1864 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon now, Kysrie, you're just putting words in Mr. Killigan's mouth. He said the articles will tend to be written from a US/UK perspective, because it is the English Wikipedia. He in no place said that it was to a negative degree. If you check other language Wikipedias, you'll find that on a large scale, the English is the most NPOV. As for the discrepancies between the two numbers for American casualties, we've already explained this: it was a clerical error. Some admin clerk simply took the number of US soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen who died during the Korean War timeframe, whether they actually died in Korea or in a driving accident in West Germany (for example). You're one to talk about nationalism. Your edit history isn't exactly unbiased. Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking to a brick wall. Parsecboy 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind the NPOV,while you could claim the english wikipedia don't follow the NPOV,but English NPOV.So if you suggest the English NPOV,I recommended you campaign the board of wikimedia to adjust their foundamental policy from the NPOV to local or special or english or simply American NPOV.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't beleive anybody has ever said that Ksyrie. If however, that's how you feel, you are always allowed to contact those such committee's, etc. at your own discretion. ANYWAY, how about keeping comments, etc. on the subject? wbfergus 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Does any editor think that we should submit this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review? I ran down through the article and made any changes to grammer mistakes, etc. but I'm wondering if there is any more work to be done until we can request a peer review. Mr. Killigan 06:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A peer review is good, but I think the article itself needs some more work and further clarifications in some areas first. Also, the article is quite large, and it probably needs to be broken out into "sub-pages", but I'm not sure which approach would be better, having separate "articles" for "areas" or just having more "true sub-pages", like Korean War/Phases of Battle or something. I "think" that this has undergone a peer review a few years back, but it keeps getting changed so often many of the previous suggestions have either been negated or fallen by the wayside. I do remember seeing somewhere that other felt it was to long for a single article and needed to be broken up in smaller pages. wbfergus 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I understand. I just requested a peer review, but I do agree that there should be more work before we submit any requests. Mr. Killigan 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review 

message: Okay, something just doesn't look right in the section on War Crimes. First, the section states "South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of alleged “Communist sympathizers” during incidents like the Daejeon and Jeju Massacres; the bodies of these killed were often dumped into mass graves. Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the figure at 100,000."
Then you look over at the picture and it shows a bunch of bodies in a trench. The caption reads "Massacred prisoners are packed into trenches in Daejeon, South Korea, October 1950". These two thereby give the impression that these are the dead bodies of prisoners killed by the South Koreans. However, clicking on the picture itself shows the caption associated with the picture actually reads "Civilians massacred by retreating communist forces during the Korean War are packed into trenches in Taejon, South Korea, October 1950." There is a similar picture on the commons at  with it's caption also reading "South Korean Civilians murdered by retreating NKPA, Taejon, South Korea".
So, either the non-existent page for the Daejeon Massacre would/should be about the KPA killing of civilians, or there were more than one mass killing of civilians in or around the Daejeon area. Either way, the section needs a partial rewrite to to either specify that Daejeon was KPA killing civilians or stating that Daejeon was the site of multiple mass civilian killings, by both North and South Koreans (if this is in fact true, which I'm not sure of). The caption for the picture on the page should also be reworded to match the real caption of the picture. Comments? wbfergus 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kfc1864 or Cydevil38, since I believe both of you are Korean and maybe in Korea as well, can either of you research this a bit and see which is correct? If either the "Daejeon Massacre" was in fact only about North Koreans killing South Korean civilians, or if there were more than one "Daejeon Massacre" during the Korean War timeframe? Thanks. wbfergus 12:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crimes section 

message: I'm having some problems with the image on the right. When anyone first looks at this collage of maps, they look at the biggest aspect of it: the map on the left side of the picture. Now, I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but this picture here is actually not the end result of the war. In fact, it isn't that close to it. Why are we putting so much emphasis on this particular segment of the war? Are we not seemingly promoting one side of the war, almost as if we are a form of propaganda? Especially with the caption at the bottom that states this is an over view, people will assume that this is indeed the overview of the war, that the united nations succeeded by a long shot. I understand the source obviously wants to promote this idea, and that's understandable, but as an international community and encyclopedia, I don't quite think this is appropriate. My recommendations are as follows:
Either:
:1) Crop out the rest of the "time line" and other events, and put the map itself up as a segment of the war, with the appropriate captions underneath that does not give the false impression.
:2) Resize the middle picture and re-adjust the positioning of the pictures so that all four of them will share equal emphasis. The resolution on the other 3 maps are high enough for this to be done.
:3) Find/create maps of the other 3 (or more) segments of the war of equal dimensions.
:4) Delete this picture. We have another animation available, of lesser details yes, but with less slant, and still demonstrating the key aspects of it.
These are my suggestions, please criticize or support accordingly or respectably. If no one comments, I guess I'll take the action that I can do with most confidence. --Steven 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it could be biased, but I don't think the uploader did it in a biased manner. I'm sure most readers will have enough sense to click on the image for a larger picture. I don't think there is any problem with it right now, but its probably safe to look for a better image and/or keep a watch on this. Thanks for your comment. Mr. Killigan 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with Steven, it is sort of biased to show the map at the furthest UN advance largest. The best options in my opinion would be to cut off the rest of the smaller maps, timeline, to leave just the large map, or resize them so they're equal. I might play around with that a little to see how it looks. Parsecboy 13:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Mr. Killigan, that the uploader likely did not upload the imaging with biased intentions. As I've mentioned, the image is quite detailed, and understandable as an important aspect as far as progression of the war goes. However, the source itself is likely biased, and while it's okay for that site to be, we are international, and we should attempt to remove all biases possible, so as to not offend a particular group within this community. I'll also see if I can fiddle around with the image, and I encourage others to do so as well, and we'll update the picture accordingly afterwards. --Steven 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a version of the map, and I'll upload it shortly, so you guys can see it, and decide if it's better than the current version or not. I resized the images and cleaned them up some, and chopped off the timeline, because I didn't think it really added much. Parsecboy 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the image I created. Let me know what you guys think. Parsecboy 23:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the map should be modified to be more NPOV. As for parsecboy's new map, the image gets distorted at full resolution, and it's somewhat difficult to read the details on the map. Is there a way to make this in higher resolution? Also, I think a map like this that describes the course of the war in a single picture is also a good alternative, though parsecboy's new map is more preferrable as it is easier to visually distinguish the course of events and change of fronts. Cydevil38 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that the details are pretty distorted at the full resolution. I don't have any fancy image programs, so I don't know if it could be made into a higher resolution image. I suppose I could manually clean it up, but that'll take a little while. I would prefer a map similar to the one I made to the one you linked, for the same reason you stated; it's easier to follow the progress of the war visually. At a first glance, it's pretty easy to see, while your map is sort of confusing. I'll do some more work on my version, and we'll see what we get. Parsecboy 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I agree, it might be more comprehensible as the way we have now. Parsecboy, out of curiosity so we don't work over each other, what software are you using to edit the image? If you haven't already used it, I'll give it a shot with Photoshop after I wake up tomorrow. --Steven 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just using MS paint. Like I said, I don't have anything fancy :). Parsecboy 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I created this blank map of Korea from the two separate NK and SK maps at the World Factbook, if you'd like to play around with it. Parsecboy 20:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redid the 4 progressive maps image, except for drawing lines of advance, etc. I'm a little leery of doing so, but if you would like me to send what I've got to you, I can do that. I'm not sure how to find a person's email address on Wikipedia, or even if you have that function enabled, but I'd rather not keep uploading these maps if they're not finished. Or you can do it yourself, just let me know what you want to do. Parsecboy 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I subsituted the work in progress map for the old one, per Cydevil38's suggestion. I think it's better to have a slightly rough NPOV map up than one that is clearly biased towards the UN forces. I plan on trying to clean it up more perhaps sometime this week, when I get time, or if not, then this weekend. Parsecboy 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Are and  enough to make an article? --HanzoHattori 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'd disagree with creating an article for that specific individual. However, I think an article on the South Korean POWs who are still in North Korea is important enough for an article, and Jun Yong-il can be set as an example in such an article. Cydevil38 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make an article, there isn't a problem with that. Good friend100 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sgt. Jun Yong-il 

message: The reason for the war is not the war itself - this is whathe article is saying by listing the North's attack on the South as a Casus belli. The Casus Belli was the fact that Kores was divided and that the North percieved the south as a threat to its socialist/communist aims.Tourskin 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most allies vs. allies style war articles have casus belli as some sort of proto-conflict between two states. --NEMT 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus Belli? 

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

message: The film "Pork Chop Hill," directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Gregory Peck, is not included.  I should think that this film would deserve inclusion, as it is regarded by many as one of the best war films of all time.66.212.142.202 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in!Kfc1864 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depictions

message: I improved the article a lot and followed through the peer review that was requested. Do any of you guys think this can be an A-class article? Mr. Killigan 11:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am strongly against this thought of review. It is a good article, I'll give it that, and one that deserves it's current class. However, as stated above, there are some major issues of neutrality that must be taken care of before a review should even be considered. --Steven 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, what neutrality issues are so bad that you say that a review should not "even be considered"? I don't see anything that is heavily biased. Mr. Killigan 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is neutral enough, you can't rewrite history to appease everyone. Bleh999 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do we even bother with NPOV within historical articles at all? In your point of view, what I see as "historically correct" is wrong to you, and that's not a problem, since history is not meant to appease everyone. --Steven 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you list some of the specific concerns you have with the content of the article, otherwise I'm not sure what you are referring to, unless you mean the 'neutrality of the images' which is a totally different matter.  Bleh999 21:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, I do believe the neutrality of the images hinder the ability of the article. As far as the text goes, I'm happy with the change to the Bevin Alexander quote, however, I think the image usage are as much an aspect for the article as the text itself, and if there exists bias in the image, there is bias overall. --Steven 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats not specific. How can one entire article be biased? Nobody else thinks theres heavy bias in the article. Mr. Killigan 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, no one else has given an opinion. --Steven 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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