Talk:Korean War/Archive 6

message: The author does not cite any reports.  Gives a vague disclainer about conflicting numbers form various scholarly journals (alas none are mentioned0.  Then the author goes on to cite some purported figures by a communist regime.
Bad history, bad communist propaganda piece
"The Korean War finally ended in July 1953. Left in its wake were four million military and civilian casualties, including 33,600 American, 16,000 UN allied, 415,000 South Korean, and 520,000 North Korean dead. There were also an estimated 900,000 Chinese casualties. Half of Korea's industry was destroyed and a third of all homes"  source http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html
Apparently one third of the Peoples Republic of China's army was wiped out and or disabled in Korea.  
America's air superiority led to enormous chinese casulties in what a commanding general called a meat grinder.  China would send its human wave , Nato forces would withdraw and then the chinese troops would be annihiliated by bommbing.  The US airforce called this the meat griner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With what are you finding fault, exactly? Be a little more specific, and we can address your concerns. As for China's army, in 1950, the PLA was 5 million strong, with an additional 5.5 million-man militia. 900k is hardly 1/3 of even the regular army, let alone total forces. Parsecboy 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: someone needs to add the new treaty sighned by both North and South Korea stating the war is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.176.65 (talk • contribs) 
:There was no treaty signed ending the war; North and South signed an agreement calling for negotiations that would result in a treaty to end the war. There's a big difference. Parsecboy 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finaly over 

message: Could someone please fix the section on nuclear weapon threats?  I saw quite a few weasel words, and the main focus of the paragraph is that Truman accidentally threatened using nukes. Crisco 1492 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read above, in the "Nuclear weapons section", you'll see they're very much engaged in attempting to fix the problems with that section of the article. Parsecboy 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry. I just noticed that after posting my comment. Crisco 1492 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't think that we should approach this article for long, even for a rewrite (this is response for Wberfugus' request) until we have ton of more editors interested in Korea-related topics. It's my opinion that about 1/10 editors signed up for WikiProject Korea are sock puppets & about 8/10 editors have lost interest in Wikipedia. And then the remaining 1/10 can't do anything - most of the work groups are inactive except for maybe food & even that is done by ppl not in the cuisine work group. Currently, I'm trying to push Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) to become a featured article, but user:Good friend100 seems to dislike my edits & he doesn't reply to my suggestions so I'm not quite sure what I want to do. I could begin contributing to this article, but I don't want to invest my time if it'd become a waste (as were several of my experiences in contributing). (Wikimachine 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help you with that.Kfc1864 talk my edits 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free. Now that there is a new fiscal year, my focus needs to shift back to real life again. I have a bunch of work to get done now that I have another set of billable hours to charge against, so I won't be able to spend as much time on here as I was for at least a few more months. Also, I finally found my copy of Singlaub's "Hazardous Duty" yesterday and took a quick glance through it, and there's a things I'd like to add from it, primarily how the CIA knew abouth the NK buildup prior to the invasion, but MacArthur and therefore Army Intelligence, discredited the information as unreliable, etc. I don't think there is anything currently in the article about that, so if you run across place for it, let me know. Or, I could include the relevant parts here, and you can then re-edit appropriately for the article. Either way. wbfergus  Talk 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

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

message: Please stop edit warring. I just checked the edit history and theres a long string of edit warring. WP:3RR will remain in effect and if you keep this up, somebody will have to file a report. Good friend100 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first (and required) step in getting Administrator sanctions, if the edit warring continues, below is an official RfC. wbfergus  Talk 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good! I keep forgetting about these simple resolutions. Seems to be getting a problem for me since I keep eyeing the banhammer. Poor, poor, AGF. Good friend100 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The total death in the US estimates of Chinese is over 400,000. The total wounded is 486,000. So if you add them together, it is 886,000+. This number even larger than the total Chinese strength of 780,000 which is all agreed. We now can see how absurd these US estimations are. Nobody returned home? Even so it should be right 780,000. Dongwenliang 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your facts. The estimates presented are for both Chinese and North Korean casualties. wbfergus  Talk 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, read the infobox completely. The 780,000 was the peak strength, not the overall number of soldiers involved, which numbered over 2 million for the Chinese PVA. Parsecboy 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, a soldier who has been wounded multiple times badly enough to be removed from action before being sent back into the fighting can be counted as multiple casualites.  I believe that the ANZAC forces wracked up a casualty rate greater than 100 percent in the Gallipoli campaign in this way. --Jfruh (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I only see the 780,000 is under "Strength". You probably need to add a note to make your points logic. Or change it to "Peak Strength". Dongwenliang 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the section of the box carefully; it already explains it.Parsecboy 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I did not count the misssing number. If you add 148,000 with 29,000, the total is 170,000. Dongwenliang 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so parsecboy, do you have a break down death number from each state of USA?Dongwenliang  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right here, provided by another user the other time this came up. It's actually got some pretty good statistics at the bottom of the page, and explains pretty well. Parsecboy 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US estimated numbers 

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

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

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

message: It seems that the RFC bot can only handle a single active RFC request per discussion page at any one time. I have included an internal link to this section in the earlier RFCxxx template in the dcument, and removed the RFCxxx template from this section. Here is a link back to the earlier RFC section DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if they are informative, relevant and accurate..."
This image fills all three of those requirements. If you want to find a replacement image with a dead Chinese soldier face down, that is in public domain, go right ahead. Until you or anyone else does so, however, this image will remain in the article. Parsecboy 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to find out if I am the only one feels offensive, or most Chinese people feel the same way. I maybe over-react, my father is a Chinese Korea War veteran. He lost some of his best friends in the war. The PVA was the only army force whom did not accused of killing civilians during Korea War as I know, among all the parties participated. I think I may also in the conflict of interets. Dongwenliang 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one other argument here Dong. You said that as a Chinese person, you are offended by the picture of because you can see his face. Well, by looking at the caption, you should be able to tell already that it would probably be something that would offend you, yet you obviously have clicked on the picture (to make it larger), since you cannot clearly see his face until viewed full size. So, with forewarning that the picture may very well offend you, you take a detailed look at it anyway just so you can be offended. This simply does not make sense. wbfergus  Talk 10:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree with Parsecboy's above comment.  The dead should be respected, and shown to be such. Crisco 1492 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the photographer was actually a Navy corpsman attached to the U.S. Marines not Army, and I've seen a photo taken by Chinese with a sign placed on a dead UN soldier saying 'foreign invader' or something along those lines, so surely the Chinese weren't innocent of taking 'trophy' photographs whenever they could.  This isn't such a photograph anyway, it just shows a dead soldier on a battlefield, there is no posing or apparent NPOV violation Atomsgive 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Postdoc, your arguments make no sense. If the Army ran the governmnet, Truman couldn't have fired MacArthur. There is a difference between the Army and the Government here in America (unlike some countries). Trophy pictures have the person who took the killing shot posed with the 'trophy'. It is blatantly obvious that this does not happen in this picture. So, both of your arguments are invalid. wbfergus  Talk 10:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't it just better to not place a picture there at all? Take the picture out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.248.22 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting meat puppetry? No, rules are not broken, for any reason whatsoever. Consensus goes is very important, but does not supersede Wikipedia policy. Your argument about the homeless man is irrelevant. It does not matter that people who knew this dead soldier may see the image. Policy is policy. Parsecboy 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for another comment 

message: Is there a reason why Joint Security Area isn't included in the film section? -- 64.180.70.35 (talk)
:Add the article since its relevant. You don't have to ask for "permission" to put it in. -- Good friend100 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a Korean War movie. Go to the DMZ article. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSA Movie 

message: These four bttles were among the bloodiest in the entire war, costing lives of thousands soldiers and civilians. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Seoul]] article is a total joke 

message: "The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. These weapons could pierce the armor of the T-34-85s only at extremely close range." armour penetration of HEAT weapons like the bazooka is independent of range. i'll remove this sentence unless someone wants to rewrite--Mongreilf (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "The South Korean army had anti-tank rockets but these were World War II vintage 2.36 inch (60 mm) M9 bazookas. These weapons could pierce the armor of the T-34-85s, but only had an effective range of 120 yards (110 m)." I vaguely remember reading somewhere else, that because of the short range and the proximity of NK infantry, either the ROK troops were quickly killed or they didn't dare to fire them, something like that. Probably in one of the cited refs. wbfergus  Talk 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bazooka inaccuracy 

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

message: There is an inaccuracy which a registered user may wish to correct. 
'China warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as “a bold attempt to blackmail the U.N.” and did not take it seriously'
This should actually read: China warned American leaders through neutral diplomats that it would intervene to protect its national security. Truman regarded the warnings as “a BALD attempt to blackmail the U.N.” and did not take it seriously. 
A small mistake i know but accuracy defines the right from the lazy ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.124.228 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it at one point did say "bald". Someone probably thought it was a typo, and "fixed" it. I'll correct it now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  " a BALD attempt to blackmail the UN " 

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

message: A couple points/thoughts about the recent slew of citation requests.
# Some of them are good, valid requests. Others are contained in the refs either immediately before or after where the request is at. I have seen/read many of those statements in the provided refs myself. Those who request them should make the minimal effort to at least look to see if those statements are included in the provided refs before or after where they made their request. Otherwise, almost every sentence or part of a sentence would need to have it's own citation. It's kind of silly (and looks bad) having the same ref cited three or places in the same paragraph because somebody is to lazy to check the provided ref.
#If you are going to provide a ref or request one, at least do it the right way. I just fixed a request that was 'formed' as a reference, with a reference a couple sentences ahead of it.
Minor points, but this article needs so much additional work, these minor annoyances detract from accomplishing real 'repairs'. Thanks. wbfergus  Talk 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Reproducing the relevant section of the reference for those without free access to journals:
"43 During the Korean War (which occurred during the American Occupation of Japan and prior to the establishment of the SDF in 1954), Japanese ships were involved in minesweeping and a number of Japanese were killed. The Japanese were also engaged in servicing and repair of US military equipment. During the Vietnam War, Japan provided political and diplomatic support but no logistical support, although the United States used the Okinawa bases to launch bombing attacks in Vietnam (Okinawa was under US administration until 1972). After the reversion of Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty, US forces ceased direct attacks from Japan. Personal interview, Associate Professor Katahara Eiichi, Canberra (March 2000)."
- [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713604482 Mulgan, Aurelia George (2000) 'Beyond Self-defence? Evaluating
Japan's Regional Security Role under the New Defence Cooperation Guidelines',
Global Change, Peace & Security, 12:3, 223 - 246], page 229, footnote #43
Dr. Katahara Eiichi is in fact a fellow Chief, 1st Research Office, Research Department at National Institute of Defense Studies (NIDS), Tokyo, Japan. The NIDS website describes his area of expertise as "International Relations, US defense policy, Japan's foreign and security policy, US-Japan security relations, International Relations in East Asia and the Pacific". The Australian Defence College, Canberra website lists this same Katahara Eiichi of the Tokyo NIDS as a visiting fellow (retrieved 3.26.05). 
Since this seems to be a fact that would have been kept secret at the time, and is rarely even mentioned in the literature, I wonder what extent the cover up was at the time, i.e. were the Japanese sailors families notified of the true cause of their deaths?
(24.7.75.93 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somewhat disingenuous to include the Japanese flag among the 16 nations that joined the South Koreans within the UN coalition. Though the facts presented above may very well be true, the UN coalition did not include Japan. There are 16 monuments commemorating assistance from allies scattered across the northern part of South Korea – there aren’t 17. There are 16 foreign flags flying on the southern side of the DMZ at Panmunjom – not 17. The Cemetery at the UN Memorial Park in Pusan holds the remains of soldiers from 10 nations in the coalition and acknowledgement that the remains of soldiers from six other allied nations were repatriated after the war – for a total of 16 nations, not 17.  If Japan is to be included in the list of belligerents, then it should be done with a very clear asterisks denoting that Wikipedia, unlike an encyclopedia, is postulating something new.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.82.164 (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 202.70.82.164 that it is an inaccurate representation to list Japan to appear as a UN coalition country. To differentiate while labeling clearly, I added a subcategory called "Naval Support and Military Servicing/Repairs". I do not think this is postulating something new, only something rarely covered, as it is supported by a journal reference which comes from a Japanese military academic source whose credentials I pointed to above. (24.7.75.93 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Naval Support in the Korean War 

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

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

message: I believe that this article is at a high standard and that it should be rated an "A".
Many other people probably agree with me and should put it in this disscussion area.
Euge246 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article failed pretty miserably in its attempt just for GA status. Check the archives for details. A couple of the problems were lack of citations; most of that what is in the article is contained within the references cites already, but not all 'passages' are cited so it is clear where they came from. The section about the possibility of nuclear warfare also needs a major overhaul. I've made a few attempts at improving the article, but it is so time-consuming researching through all of the sources trying to find which passage is cited in which reference. wbfergus  Talk 10:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We want this article to be a rated an "A" 

message: I notice that the article actually looks much better than Start-class, (well, at least B) so.... a peer review?-Kfc18645 talk 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that it's definitely not start class-why's there no people responding?Kfc18645 talk 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right off hand, I'd say it's probably a B-class. There's a lot of references, very few typos or grammatical errors, but it still needs a lot of work to get higher. wbfergus  Talk 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it probably should be B class, perhaps we should do a MILHIST peer review for it? Maybe get some pointers from a wider community? Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've done that quite many times.Kfc18645 talk 10:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review? 

message: Anybody else notice that the number of casualties (excluding civilians) for the North Koreans and Chinese exceeds the number of troops they deployed? Maybe I'm missing something here.... please tell me if I am.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.149.75.210 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the infobox again. Notice the little footnote in the "Strength" box that says "Note: All figures may vary according to source. This measures peak strength as sizes changed during the war." wbfergus  Talk 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldier Casualties 

message: soviet union doesn' exist anymore, why this country still in the Belligerents list ? i think some one should modify and put something next to "soviet Union" like this "no longer exist" or something else. what about china ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalh (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Soviet Union existed then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.101.202 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: China exists now as well. Do other war articles have these? No.Kfc18645 talk 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See World War II. wbfergus  Talk 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents 

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

message: Why no lsiting of Ethiopian casualites-Kagnew Battalion-121 Killed 536 wounded?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.143 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'cause there's not enough space.Kfc18645 talk 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethiopia]] casualites 

message: Just cause tail-gunner Joe would have said it doesn't make it untrue.  They were all self-professed Communist states fighting to, among other things, advance world Communism.  Why shouldn't they be classified as Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why aren't the UN forces labeled "Capitalists"? Surely they had the exact same goals: to advance world capitalism. My point is that it's an outdated worldview to label them as a monolithic bloc bent on global domination, or at least incredibly jingoistic to pretend the West wasn't doing the exact same thing. Bunching them all together as "Communists" is doing exactly that. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because that would be silly.  Not all the nations fighting for the UN were strictly capitalists nor was their primary motivation the advancement of capitalism and they self-identified as the United Nations.  All the nations fighting for "Belligerent Group 2" were communists, they were motivated by the advancement of communism and most importantly, these nations self-identified as communists.  They were Communists, they called themselves Communists, they would have been proud to have been called Communists so why not just call them Communists? - Schrandit (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese were fighting for a buffer zone against American presence in Japan, not some idealistic "advancement of global communism", and the Soviets got involved because Mao wouldn't stop pestering Stalin about it, not because he particularly gave a crap one way or the other. There's no real need for labels for the belligerent groups in the first place; the situation is sufficiently complex that labeling them as "Communists" only serves to muddy the waters and reinforce false Cold War mythology. Their relationships should be explained in the text, not by one word in the infobox (which is where many readers look first, so we should take care to not oversimplify to the point of being wrong). Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may have been one of their goals but the advancement of communism also was another and it was one they had no shyness about announcing.  Most sources say Soviet involvement preceded Chinese intervention.  There is some Cold War mythology floating around but the Cold War was very real, there was a world struggle against Communism and this was part of it.  These nations fought under the banner of marxism and would have been proud to be called Communists, so lets call them Communists. - Schrandit (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Soviets were involved before China formally intervened, however, they did so at China's behest. I'm not saying the Cold War wasn't real, but that doesn't mean we need to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s. As far as the advancement of communism is concerned, Mao was the only one who really cared about it; he later denounced Stalin and the Soviets as lacking the will to lead the so-called "world-wide communist revolution". Stalin's only real motivation was to create a buffer against American forces in Japan, just as he did against the West in Europe. Again, trying to reduce this complex alliance as being "they're communists, and were doing so to advance global communism" is at best overly simplified, and at worst, just plain wrong. Our job is to educate readers, not propagate out-dated Cold War mythology. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now we enter the realm of speculation; Mao loved Stalin, the sino-soviet split only occurred after Stalin's death, Stalin already had a buffer between him and bases in Japan.  I'm not trying to look at the events of the Cold War through the eyes of the 1950s, merely trying to look at the Cold War.  The infobox serves as a simplification of the events, no one expects it to encompass the whole history and to say that an alliance of UN aligned nations fought an alliance of Communist nations is a fairly accurate simplification of the events. - Schrandit (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mao may have loved Stalin in the 30s, but tensions between the two were already brewing in the aftermath of WWII. Sino-Soviet relations actually improved to a slight degree following Stalin's death; it wasn't until Khrushchev formally rejected the concept of the inevitable armed conflict between capitalist and communist countries that the Sino-Soviet Split actually came about. None of that is directly relevant, in any case. In one of the seemingly endless discussions over the contents of the WWII infobox, someone said "The great vice of this place is that editors constantly try to pigeonhole and categorise, even when the material does not conform to a tidy schema. If you can't categorise accurately then don't mislead - let the article explain the complexities of the matter". That, essentially, is my point. Sticking a homogenizing label on an alliance only obscures what was actually going on. Yes, all three countries were communist societies, but that doesn't mean that that was what drove their decisions in participating in the war. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Communist belligerents in the Korean War as Communists 

message: The Peoples Republic of Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_Korea), which the local Koreans had tried to set up as a government while overthrowing the japanese collaborators, should be mentioned by name and linked in the part near the beginning alongside the more vague "Many Korean people had organized politically prior to the arrival of American troops." This should again be mentioned by name in the part where "A second policy set forth by Hodge was to refuse to recognize the existing political organizations that had been established by the Korean people." It should say specifically that the de facto government of the People's Republic of Korea was suppressed. 
If you search for "People's Republic of Korea" within wikipedia it currently links to "North Korea / Democratic People's Republic of Korea", and it seems the only way to find the page is to instead search for it in google. There should be a disambiguation on that page or it should be described within: the short lived attempt at a revolutionary republic which was part of the basis that developed into the DPRK in the north and in the south existed between the overthrow of japanese collaborators and the US restoration of collaborators. The suppression of the "people's republic" is a large part of the origin of the Cheju uprising/suppression. 
It should say the People's Republic of Korea was the most popular and that the US favored the Korean Democratic Party, which consisted of large landowners and wealthy businessmen, while suppressing the PRK which had a broad base of support.
Here is an article from a Korean journal. It is covered in other sources though usually pro-US sources give it no mention. Given the bias of the US and ROK governments in helping suppress knowledge of the mass atrocities for over 50 years, we should view productions by them during that time as equivalent to "extremist sources" for the purposes of Korean war historiography, and similarly view their claims about "free elections" with the same suspicion that is used towards the North. 
http://sociology.snu.ac.kr/isdpr/publication/journal/26-2/Hyesook%20Lee.pdf
``State formation and civil society under American occupation: the case of South Korea''
HS Lee - Korea Journal of Population and Development, 1997 - sociology.snu.ac.kr
USMGIK refers to the United States Military Government In Korea. KDP is the Korean Democratic Party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of People's Republic of Korea 

message: "Free Elections" in the opening paragraph is ridiculous. The US and ROK may spin it that way, but the fact is the elections in Rhee's Korea were less free than in Mugabe's Zimbabwe of today. For example, Rhee threatened to have people's food ration cards away if they voted against him, and there were frequent arrests or executions of political opponents. South Korean elections at the time were probably no more free than elections in the North.
Such claims reach the heights of absurdity, and would be like if Britain occupied the north of the US during the war of 1812 and suppressed all opposition, then ran elections where only Tories and a couple of other pro british parties run and claims they are "free elections". This cold war propaganda is completely inappropriate to have stated as if it is the truth, though because it has been repeated so much it would be appropriate to mention in the article that the US and ROK claimed "free elections" as a discredited fringe theory.
"Failing to strengthen their case in the elections" This assumes they even tried to compete in the elections, or that it would have been possible to. No leftist parties ran in the South Korean elections, which were widely considered rigged because left wing groups were being violently suppressed and because of the associated threats to people who vote the wrong way, and also because the majority of South Korea opposed separate elections even being held. The fact is the leftists didn't attempt to "strengthen their case" in the South Korean elections and anyone trying to would just have been executed, imprisoned, or force recruited into the bodo league/NGL "rehabilitation" program and mass executed later, so laying low and trying guerilla organization was probably the obvious strategy for them.
This explains how even after elections, the Rhee regime had "little public support".
WP article currently says:
"The Americans did not want a communist government in South Korea so they called for elections in all of Korea. Since the population of the South was double that of the North, the Soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose the election."
Instead, it should say that the soviets knew that Kim Il-sung would lose an election where the south was excluding and violently suppressing leftist parties, who were the majority at the time. Also it should say that the Americans feared that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, which is why they suppressed leftist groups while using the phrase "free elections" as propaganda. In fact, the Soviets thought that in real free elections the communists would win an overall majority, and so did the Americans, especially once the war started and the US bombed every city and killed mass civilians etc. The soviets were boycotting the UN in general and not free elections per se, but they were boycotting "free elections" where the UN would lie and say it was fair despite widespread suppression of the left and admissions in their own reports that said people were threatened with taking away their food rations if they voted the wrong way.
Some Myths about June 1950
Robert R. Simmons
The China Quarterly, No. 54 (Apr. - Jun., 1973), pp. 354-361 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/652006?seq=3 
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies
"[t]he Syngman Rhee regime enjoyed little public support" p 356
I.F. Stone. The Hidden History of the Korean War. Monthly Review Press. 1971
The first part of this quotation refers to the soviet peace/election mediation offer in 1950, and the second part relates to the UN commissions on the two previous "free elections".
"The fear that the Communists would win such elections was reflected in a speech made by Warren Austin at Lake Sucess on August 17 [1950], which "revealed that the United States wants them [the elections] to be held on the basis that the Republic of Korea's jurisdiction would be extended over North Korea automatically."... If its jurisdiction were automatically extended over the North, it would supervise the elections. Already two United Nations Commissions had reflected unfavorably on the way the Syngman Rhee regime handled elections and manhandled political opponents; threats to confiscate rice ration cards were noted as one of the milder forms of coercion by the United Nations Temporary Commission which observed the elections establishing the Rhee regime.
""The difficulty," the New York Times correspondent at Lake Success explained, "is that there is a strong probability of an over-all Communist majority if the elections were held before the communization of North Korea had been undone, and before a UN reconstruction program had assuaged the bitterness of North and South Korea against the destruction of their homes during their liberation by UN forces. In that case communism would win by an election what it failed to obtain by an invasion." p117-118
Stone's citations for these are:
United Nations Document A/Ac 19/80, p.117: Cited by George M McCune, Korea Today, p.228.
New York Times August 24, 1950
-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free Elections" (music to mugabe's ears) 

message: "The war eventually led to a strengthening of alliances in the Western bloc and the splitting of Communist China from the Soviet bloc."
China did not split from the soviet bloc over the Korean War. They split because of a combination of Khruschev's speech against aspects of stalinism, the withdrawal of Soviet advisors after the debacle of Mao's Great Leap Forward, and Krushchev's refusal to support China in the border war with Nehru's India. I would be interested in hearing the chain of reasoning used to support the idea that it was really the Korean War where they were all cooperating that caused them to split and not those other events of extreme friction. But for now you should probably just take that out as it is far fetched, goes against most of the histories, has no source, links to an article that says nothing about it, and without additional support it is a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.-(71.202.180.190 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I've removed the sentence in question. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate legacy 

message: Some trusted user might wanna add Crysis to the "Games"-section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakkour (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Parsecboy (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games 

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

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

message: I can't edit this page and was redirected here. I couldn't believe that there seemed to be no estimate or range of estimates on civilian casualties and/or total casualties.  Here is what I found, please post it in article if you believe it might improve it.
The article I read provides the following information:
While accurate numbers for deaths are imprecise, various sources approximate the war's South Korean civilian casualties -- dead, wounded and missing -- at about one million people. North Korean civilian casualties were perhaps twice that, many of them as a result of the U.N. bombing campaign. The numbers vary, but it's probably safe to say that there were somewhere between three and four million Korean civilian casualties; this at a time when the total population was some 30-40 million people! And civilians died at a ghastly rate in Korea.
Historian Bruce Cumings, in a 1994 article in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, notes that civilian casualty rates in the Korean War were nearly 70 percent of total casualties, compared to about 40 percent in World War II.
According to a June 20, 2000 article in the Korea Herald: "The war left about 5 million people dead, wounded or missing, more than half of them civilians. It also left more than 10 million people separated from their families, 300,000 war widows and 100,000 war orphans."
References:
50 Years And Counting
The Impact of the Korean War on the People of the Peninsula
May 2002
by Phil de Haan
Johnatmls (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties of Civilians Compared to Total Population 

message: The Chinese People's Government had complained to the United Nations about United States aggression against the province of Taiwan and violations of its airspace by the United States Air Force prior to the entry by Chinese volunteers in Korea. The current version of this article disingenuously omits United States acts of war against China. Nierva (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you try to find more/better sources on that? - Schrandit (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Intervention 

message: According to report of June 24, 2008 at []
*Number of remains total unacccounted for: 8,055
*Number of remains reparited are: 489 of whom 100 are identifed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.47 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US MIAS KOrean Conflict Stats