Talk:Korean War/Archive 5

message: Although the western forces in Korea were in fact commanded by US generals and ultimately the US president in a crusade to "rollback communism", they were technically a UN "police" force. To avoid officially declaring war on US, Britain, France and other UN members, China did not send units of the People's Liberation Army but instead allowed volunteers of the People's Volunteer army to aid the Korean people. This is elaborated here and here 
Barjag 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know that China was officially non-involved. However, all the sources treat them as direct agents of the PRC. Your first link is dead and your second is irrelevant, as well as being an apparently non-reliable source. Eleland 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering Mao's own son was killed by a US air attack in Korea, it would be difficult to claim that the Chinese involvement was 'unofficial' Bleh999 13:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that China did not actively participate in Korea is further complicated by the fact that all of the PVA (or CPV) units that fought in Korea had the exact same PLA unit designation as they did before, during, and after action in Korea. It is very difficult to accept that a unit suddenly ceased to exist as an official Chinese government force (PLA) and was officially disbanded (so it wasn't an official government force), only to be reconstituted immediately with the same PLA designation under a non-governmental organization (PVA/CPV), but still supplied by the government, lead by PLA senior officers and communist party political commisars, and then disbanded when they either were rotated out of Korea or suffered so many casualties or other losess that they needed to regroup back in China and once again immediately reconstituted as an official PLA unit again. It was all merely a minor name game, nothing else was different. wbfergus 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one disputes that the US dominated the military effort, but they weren't alone, your claim about the UN also applies to the Gulf War in 1991.  Your argument that the PVA had no connection to the Chinese government is original research and won't be allowed here, the relationship between Peng Dehuai, Mao Zedong and communist party of China during the Korean war has been detailed quite  extensively, Mao's own son was killed in a US air attack in 1950, the 'volunteer' bit was quite likely a propaganda tool, since it's hard to believe that it was indeed an all volunteer army.  Soviet pilots did in fact fly aircraft for the communist forces in the Korean conflict (accounting for most of their successful air victories), so their contribution was actually quite significant Bleh999 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering China was (and still is some extent) a repressive country, that executes and imprisons people for attempting to express individual choices and freedoms, (they even ban access to wikipedia which is why you can't be posting from mainland China) I have a hard time accepting their official word on the all volunteer army, this claim will be scrutinized as soon as I get time to research it more.  Besides even if it were an all volunteer army (and there can be no coercion in 'volunteer') that obviously would not change who the leadership of the PVA was, which was the communist party of China.  I'm not sure what the Angolan civil war has to do with this, if the Soviet pilots flew combat missions while the soviet union existed, they would be an active combatant, however the 'mercenary pilots' active in Africa from the former soviet union do not represent their Governments, they are guns for hire. Bleh999 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... Considering that the Korean War has been over for 54 years now, I think that if there was any validity to your claim that it was not an UN action, but instead an US action in Korea, that the United Nations would have 1.) Issued a proclamation denouncing the American Forces from using the "United Nations" name for the command headquarters in Korea, and 2.) Prohibited those same forces from using the United Nations flag, and 3.) None of the other UN countries involved would still have any forces there, even their ceremonial forces. These would have happened at the very least. And how is Bleh999's characterization of the Soviet pilots actually flying combat missions in North Korea tenuous, when it it is well documented, especially by the Soviet archives? Using a variation of your argument above, that what is said at the United Nations must be true, then you obviously just admitted that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your arguments are not based on any fact, just conjecture that has already been easily disproven by numerous historians and countless "official" documents. wbfergus 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the Soviets in the Korean War, did members of the Soviet military participate as members of the Soviet military (i.e., not as mercenaries)? Yes. Therefore, the Soviet Union was an active participant in the war, no matter how minor it's participation was. Parsecboy 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree; if we're going to list the UN countries that provided medical staff, we should definitely list a country that provided combat forces. The infobox states there were at one point 26,000 Soviet military personnel in North Korea. This is a significant number, greater than all but the top 4 UN countries. Parsecboy 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese participation 

message: *Russians would adhere to the proposal arranged by the U.S. government. How can it be arranged only by the US government? And what was the proposal again? For 2 Koreas to unite later or for USSR to remain halted at the 38th parallel?
:*History showed that the Soviets fulfilled their obligations and halted at the 38th parallel. So all that talk was about Russian advancing into the Korean peninsula & finally halting at the 38th parallel. Right? You should specify that. 
*The Soviets accepted this line with little question since it helped their negotiations over eastern Europe. There's better way to phrase this - "The USSR easily agreed to the establishment of the 38th Parallel over the Korean peninsula in order to make better bargains in the negotiations with the Allies over eastern Europe."
*Japanese forces north of that line would surrender to the Soviet Union and those to the south to the United States "It was agreed that the USSR would receive surrendering Japanese troops on the northern part of Korea; the US, on the southern side.
*Thus, without consulting the Korean people, the two major powers divided the Korean peninsula into two occupation zones, thereby putting into place the foundation for the eventual civil war. "Thus, without the consideration of Koreans' viewpoints, the..." And take out the "civil war" thingy. 
*Although later policies and actions contributed to Korea's division, the United States did not envision this as a permanent partition. "Although later policies also contributed..." "the United States did not suspect that this division would become permanent." -envision sounds awkward and naked "this" (the object being described not specified) is bad grammar.
(Wikimachine 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see problems with the text, go ahead and fix them. I'm sure if anyone dislikes your changes, they'll revert. I for one don't see a problem with your suggestions. Parsecboy 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with them either. wbfergus 12:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I probably got in "type it out" mode - when there were few problems that I couldn't fix b/c I didn't know much about it either. For example, I'm not quite sure how the division made the war inevitable. (Wikimachine 14:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed the ones that I can, but the rest I can't b/c I don't know much about it myself & I don't have the sources. (Wikimachine 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if it was inevitable, per se, but definitely highly probable. The reason for that is that both the USSR and USA set up friendly governments in their respective occupation zones (similar to what happened in East and West Germany). Obviously, both puppet governments want to control the entirety of Korea, so there's the cause for conflict. As noted with East and West Germany, a similar situation did not result in war, so it's an exaggeration to state that war in a divided Korea was inevitable. Parsecboy 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar flaws

message: I just wanted to throw this out here... in light of the Cumings issue, it would be a good idea to look carefully at all of the article's references. I took a quick glance, and two things stuck out. First, few of the sources come from University presses, so one has to wonder if there are any scholarly sources at all here, or if this entire article is just based on pop history. Second, but more importantly, there are no non-western sources. It looks like we're simply letting the winners write the history. To keep Wikipedia international, I think we should look for some sources from North Korea or another country on the losing side. I think this article would benefit from the discussions taking place in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Aelffin 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea on paper, but we must also remember that North Korea and the People's Republic of China aren't exactly known for "accurate reporting of events" (to put it nicely). We've had this issue here before, with a certain user attempting to force obviously wrong information into the article, because a Chinese source reported it as fact (relating to American casualties during the war). That and few of us here can speak or read Mandarin or Hangul, which makes using sources in those languages difficult, to say the least. Parsecboy 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, government propaganda should be reported as such, not ignored altogether. WP:NPOV requires reporting the opinions of all the major players. Since North Korea was a major player in the Korean War, it is bias to ignore their claims. Likewise with China. If China says a certain number of people died, but Western scholars disagree, then we should write "China says X people died, but Dr. Bob Smith, PhD calls this figure propaganda." Actually, I think we should treat all government sources as propaganda. Aelffin 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a very long "discussion" about just such an example as you gave a month or so ago. One person was arguing for the inclusion of the Chinese estimation of US casualties from the Korean War, which he said was 390,000. This has been disproved by numerous scholars and historians, who agree with the numbers as published by the DOD and their subsequent correction of the numbers years later when a clerical mistake was discovered (I'm not sure who discovered the clerical mistake). It was the concensus of all of the involved editors to reach the compromise we did. The Chinese estimate of US casualties would be completly disregarded as BS propaganda with no factual basis, while we would allow the casualty figures of Chinese troops to be listed with both the US estimation and the Chinese estimation. Both of those numbers are merely estimations from both parties, as several other Chinese sources had admitted (see discussion archives for details). wbfergus  Talk 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on Earth did you guys decide to delete it? To me, the fact that China claims vastly exaggerated American losses sounds like an important bit of the story. Don't include it as a fact--of course--but still...that's the kind of thing I want to know if I'm reading about the Korean War. Aelffin 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that we did have the Chinese estimate of American casualties in the article somewhere. I know we talked about as a sort of compromise with the other editor, and I thought that the number was, or was going to be, in the article, just not up in the infobox. I think I was the one who suggested it, as I also thought other readers would like to know just how outrageous the Chinese estimation was. wbfergus  Talk 18:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we had agreed on including it somewhere in the text, but no one ever did it. Or someone else deleted it, because I can't find it in the article. Maybe I'm just blind. That's also a possibility :) Parsecboy 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it either. So, if nobody else does before then, I'll try to add it on Wednesday. Trying to see where it would logically fit in, with the casualties reported by all sides or whatever, I don't see an "easy" place to just drop it in. wbfergus  Talk 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National bias? 

message: Why did somebody archive the ongoing GA review? (Wikimachine 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was done on purpose. I think it was just because of the default setting applied to a bot to automatically archive threads that haven't had any activity in a wekk or something like that. I think MizaBot or something like that is what's setup to do it, mainly because of the huge discussion about the Chinese casualty figures. wbfergus  Talk 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started working on this today, but the "Post-WWII division of Korea" section really needs a lot of work, as I'm sure other sections do as well. A 'home' also needs to be found for the last sentence in the "Japanese occupation" section. Anybody willing to help out? wbfergus  Talk 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not enough refs? I see more than enough. Good friend100 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, there are a bunch of refs, but at the same time, there are many statements in the article as well that need to be cited to a source, as the Cumings discussions have shown. For an article this long, there should be a lot more refs in the text, even if they are multiples of existing refs. This way, it's easier to verify which source the various points being made came from. I don't know if any existing text came from any of the external links, but if so, those should be cited and linked accordingly to the appropriate passages. wbfergus  Talk 10:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: *Fail - ok, maybe I'm too lazy for my own approach on an article like this - usually I correct all the grammar & concept mistakes myself & for the ones that I can't figure out I ask the main editors of this article to fix. This article has too many problems.
**Bad grammar & wording- the reason for this is that this article attracts many anon users who can't speak & write English very well... This often leads to many big ambiguities - i.e. the US began using the F-86 Sabre... they could defeat Migs... So, was F-86 Sabre introduced before or during the war? Was F-86 Sabre that uber amazing? I don't think that's the case, but obviously the bad grammar & wording make such misunderstanding inevitable.
:::I started working on this today, but the "Post-WWII division of Korea" section really needs a lot of work, as I'm sure other sections do as well. A 'home' also needs to be found for the last sentence in the "Japanese occupation" section. Anybody willing to help out? wbfergus  Talk 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough refs? I see more than enough. Good friend100 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, there are a bunch of refs, but at the same time, there are many statements in the article as well that need to be cited to a source, as the Cumings discussions have shown. For an article this long, there should be a lot more refs in the text, even if they are multiples of existing refs. This way, it's easier to verify which source the various points being made came from. I don't know if any existing text came from any of the external links, but if so, those should be cited and linked accordingly to the appropriate passages. wbfergus  Talk 10:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fail

message: I think something needs to be done about that. For the Communist side we can see more casualties than there were soldiers supposedly fighting. I know sources aren't in total agreement on those sorts of things, but maybe we could address those bits so that they make more sense? John Smith's 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the infobox? The troop numbers there are peak strength, not total. That explains the apparent discrepancies. I believe it states that in the infobox. Parsecboy 17:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not show total troop levels? John Smith's 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The total troop levels are more problematic than finding the peak troop levels, and sometimes more misleading depending upon the amount of work, editing, and research is performed. For instance, Turkey had something around 15,000 different troops in Korea, but only one brigade at any one time, of around 5,000 troops. Simply stating that Turkey had 15,000 troops in Korea would lead many to assume thats how many they had fighting at one time, which would false. That sentence would need to be re-worded to state that Turkey had a total of 15,000 different troops fighting in Korea, but only 5,000 were there at any one time as various brigades rotated out of Korea to replaced by a 'fresh' brigade. Of course, these numbers I just supplied are just approximations off the top of my head, the actuall numbers would need to be researched for each of the countries involved, and that's not even counting the headaches involved in trying to determine those numbers for nor only North Korea, but China as well. There's a lot of conflicting sources there to wade through, and then there's the chance that some may challenge the numbers as original research, if they haven't been officially report or published somewhere. wbfergus  Talk 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troop levels and casualties

message: Come on - especially since the picture of the port is really non-descriptive, and just plain boring. --HanzoHattori 05:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 pictures of Inchon in the infobox? 

message: At all? There were FOUR battles, mind you, reducing the city to ruins and killing tens of thousands. 
No capture of Pyongyang, neither. It's "Pusan Perimeter – Inchon – Pakchon", ONLY Inchon of the whole UN offensive until the Chinese entry! --HanzoHattori 06:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HanzoHattori, I've wondered about that myself. I do remember looking for material a while back (at least a year ago), and a problem I had was trying to find any material on it. I'd see a few sentences here and there in a few of the various references listed in this article, but I don't remember seeing anywhere near enough for an article. I think even a stub-class article might be 'iffy'. If you can find soem information, feel free to start an article, it would be good to have the additional tie-ins with some of the other battles that we do have articles on so far. wbfergus  Talk 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no battles of Seoul articles?