Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion

message: This article become heavy more than 110 Ko. We should have to cut that into smaller ones because of navigator.Whlee 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the reason why we are not splitting it is that it is a big war, and it needs to be long. Kfc1864 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organization is Needed 

message: Parsecboy seems not likely to include North Korean in their estimation of American Casuality.But if we check the source where emphasized it is a joint declaration both from China and North Korea The after-war joint declaration of the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Korean People's Army claimed that they "eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States.Why we must delete the North Korea name from the estimation.?Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in my edit summary, China is the primary proponent of this number. It was sourced from the PRC consulate in New York, not a DPRK source. Likewise, do we need to put every single country that supports the American number? No. Only PRC is needed for this source. And quit mislabeling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism. If you do it again, I'll report you for disruptive editing. This isn't the first time I've warned you about this. Parsecboy 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just check what you had said,the source itself is a chinese one,but what it emphasized states that it is from both China and North Korea.Likewise,the chinese casuality is only from Pentagon,which is clearly printed in the BBC source.For what you had called disruptive editing,I can only say WOW.Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is China not the primary proponent of the figure? Yes or no? Labeling a good faith edit made in a content dispute as vandalism is wrong. What do you not understand about that? Parsecboy 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: HanzoHattori, that seems to be amuch better reference list of US casualties than the one I linked to. Feel free to update the numbers accordingly. wbfergus 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: After I have seen what you have said,and what you have done,(continuous revert the well sourced and referenced number),I thought this article is occupied by some hardcore Private Ryans who deny everything from the other side of trench.You may find it funny,but I dont't.If this article is only APOVed,this article isn't worth reading.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only POV problem we have here is yours, which is apparently driven by Chinese propaganda. You claim the DoD is flawed and biased; in America our military is controlled and watched over by civilians, and the media independently reports on it. One need look no further than how American casualties in Iraq are paraded in the news, every single time a soldier is killed. Does that happen in China? Surely not. In North Korea? Give me a break. If you don't want to read anything other than Chinese propaganda, then go to the Chinese Wikipedia. Parsecboy 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are messing the things up,I certainly do not question the American number of american casuality,which I know little about its accuracy.What I firstly questioned is the accuracy of Amercian estimate of chinese casuality,which I found absurd to use the BDA assessment to quantify the casuality rather than their own docs.In China,there's also a Museum who got the whole name list of PVA casualities(it seems it includes only the dead soldier's names,no the wounded),and the number is about 18x,xxx which I couldn't remember exactly. But,the Museum itself don't get a website,and the all the indirect mentions of this  number are not from relible source,what's more important,they are not in english.You insist on posing the laughable 900,000 chinese casuality number,while can't give out a rather reasonalbe explanation why this number is suitable than the chinese one,so I found the Chinese and North Korean number of American casuality would be a good counterweight for it.That's all I want to say.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the 900k total casualties for the PLA during the war is laughable, then you don't know much about warfare. Also, if you think I haven't given a reasonable explanation for why I think 900k is closer to the actual number of Chinese casualties, then I've apparently been talking to a wall here, the past few days. I've discussed at length, as have other editors, why saying 180k some Chinese died during the war is ridiculously low. Parsecboy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I found the american 200K american casualities is also ridiculously low,if you question the chinese death toll list which specify the every names of deceased PVA.Your stand only question the number from other side,So I also question the American's real casuality number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you know very little about modern warfare. Parsecboy 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you really fight ever？Or did you ever fight in Korea?While I am not as professional as you are in the military discipline,but what you have learnt is the post-millenium doctrine,not the odds in 1950s.Though,you may read somethings about the Korean War,but it's not the first hand experience,which I dont get neither.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So after all,your reason of 900k casuality is based on your personal inference as opposed to source?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but the source is the one provided in the infobox, from the BBC. My support for that source is based on what I know about modern warfare, the types of armies fighting on both sides in the Korean War, and the terrain in which they were fighting. Parsecboy 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was stationed at the Joint Security Area for two 13-month tours in the '75-'79 timeframe. That part of the country isn't as bad as in the east, and there are plenty of wide open rice paddy areas that would be murderous for infantry, even with artillery support and smoke. wbfergus 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. myself. I guess I can't comment on the RfC, as I'm not an uniterested party.wbfergus 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right，the terrain of Korean is the same as the South China--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We all can comment on the RfC, especially when some new editors arrive and voice their opinion. If you'd like to sum up your thoughts on the issues here, go right ahead here. Parsecboy 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese estimate or Chinese and North Korean Estimate

message: This articles has several different issues being debated. user:Ksyrie has argued that the number of Chinese casualties estimated by the American DoD is flawed and biased, and should be removed from the list. Consensus showed that the number should remain; at this point, Kysrie added the Chinese estimation American casualties during the war. One user, user:HanzoHattori is opposed to including the Chinese number, given the high level of detail of the American source (name, rank, place of origin, date and location of death, etc.). user:Parsecboy (myself) would prefer to list only the American casualty report, for the same reasons as Hanzohattori, but is willing to allow the Chinese estimation to remain as part of a compromise. Lastly, Ksyrie insists on including "North Korea" to the "Chinese estimation" caption on the American casualties, such that it would read "Chinese and North Korean estimation". I feel this is unnecessary, as the PRC is the primary proponent of the figure, as well as it clutters the infobox. 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: *I think both estimates should be in the template with their sources clarified. Further fact-based elaboration on these estimates in the article should be useful and informative. The Chinese estimate shouldn't be called "Chinese and North Korean estimation", unless it was a joint-research project. Cydevil38 07:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such information is what I mean by "elaboration", though it should be fact-based. Anyways, I'm trying to find South and North Korean estimates. This may take some time, especially for the NK estimates. Cydevil38 08:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping your illusion,in the Cold war times,every countries are Propagandizing,the American estimation number is from the capitalist information warfare,another notorious propaganda while using the unbalanced media influence to serve themselves,how can you explain the CNN controversies#Invasion of Iraq,CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation.The Amercian media is biased,largely systematic bias,from your words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, obviously you are not very familar with American media. While it is usually biased, it's usually biased against the US government. The American media loves to report stories about government mistakes, whether they be military, political or criminal, even going so far as to sometimes make up news stories sometimes (Dan Rather is one example, another is that NY Times reporter). If there is a way to embarass the US government, the American media will report it. wbfergus 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did take times to look what I have stated,notorious propaganda,CNN controversies#Invasion of Iraq,CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation are the bias againt the US government or againt other nation or other people？The CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation was embarrassing the CNN itself or the Whitehouse?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this is getting way off topic. Regarding the "propaganda" article, I really, really had a good laugh when I read that. Then I started looking around at other "propaganda" Wiki articles, and I found Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. Let me just say that it is interesting to note your edits there. Censorship is a form of propaganda. How often does Chinese media report on dissidents, or those that oppose the Chinese government or it's policies? What happens to those dissidents? That does not happen in the West, only in Communist countries (except for a few former communist countries, who are still trying to either adapt to non-communist rule or are trying to cling on to the last vestiges of communist rule). wbfergus 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view,Censorship is just one thing to give rise to Bias,on the other hand,freedom of speech cann't eliminate bias even thought it really alleviate somehow.I mean,with the freedom of speech,the US theoretically is less-biased than the mediacontrolled country.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are avoiding my question whether the amercian media show the systematic bias to other nation and people？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, you know absolutely nothing about the American media, so stop talking about it as if you do. Yes, some news agencies are biased to support the current administration, and others are biased against it. However, the press remains free and independent, very much unlike the media in the PRC and DPRK. There is very little censorship (essentially limited to "you can't say fuck on tv, or we're going to fine you $100,000"), again, very much unlike the PRC and DPRK. Parsecboy 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, Parsecboy is truly right. I live in the US & I'll never be able to make any POV or authoritarian control accusations on the American academia (maybe not the media) as I could on the DPRK (just go to their official news page - they talk about their nukes being able to annihilate US, etc.) & PROC. (Wikimachine 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Wikimachine,there's no something called truly right in the world,even the Quantum mechanics or Theory of relativity--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like original research. Parsecboy 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this closer to 'sourced based research'- but my idea might still stink. I make no claim that it's a good idea just an option to consider. Statisticalregression 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by uninvolved parties

message: I'm trying to get some official numbers on estimated casualties, but it's harder than I thought. In the meantime, I found an estimate from a South Korean encyclopedia:
*6 ·25전쟁의 3년간에 걸친 동족상잔의 전화(戰禍)는 남북한을 막론하고 전국토를 폐허로 만들었으며, 막대한 인명피해를 내었다. 전투병력의 손실만 해도 유엔군이 한국군을 포함하여 18만 명이 생명을 잃었고, 공산군측에서는 북한군 52만 명, 중공군 90만 명의 병력을 잃었다. 또한 전쟁기간 중 대한민국의 경우 99만 명의 민간인이 목숨을 잃거나 부상을 입었다. 이 가운데 상당수는 남한지역을 북한군이 점령하고 있는 동안 인민재판 등의 무자비한 방법에 의하여 '반동계급'으로 몰려 처형당한 억울한 희생이었다.
According to the above source, the U.N. forces, which includes the South Korean forces, "lost 180,000 lives". North Korean forces lost 520,000 men and PRC forces lost 900,000 men. For North Korean and PRC forces, it does not specify what was "lost", so it may mean "decapacitated", which would include the wounded and POWs. Cydevil38 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care. WP:OR. (Wikimachine 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I'm just pointing out the South Korean figures are the same as the US, only less detailed (520,000 not 518,000, 900,000 not  886,000 etc.) - meaning the dead, missing, and wounded! OR my ass. --HanzoHattori 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind then. Sorry. (Wikimachine 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korean estimates 

message: What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, anymore? I feel we've lost track of to what you are objecting. Parsecboy 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want also pose the same question,but when we are talking,unless I pointed out some simple historic facts,I cann't make me understood.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question for Ksyrie 

message: I mean I propose to list the inexhaustive name list numbe 18xxx as the chinese casuality figure of death number and the 40K estime wounded number from chinese consult as the chinese estime wounded number.For the two estimate number from the rivals,either we all remove them,or we both include them.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am totally disappointed by your words,do you really know what does the WP:NPOV talk about？NPOV ask all the views should be presented,but not the only present the view which you think is right or you favours.I am not sure whether other involving parties agree with you or not,but you are really really biased towards you,towards to what you thought to be right.(I am not point to other editors)--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV also means reliable sources. I reject 100% any compromise. We will put only US estimates. (Wikimachine 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misinterpret the Wikipedia:Reliable sources,Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, both are theoretically reliable sources. But even they can vary slightly. However, we're not going to put in 5 different sets of statistics on the basis that they're all reliable sources. (Wikimachine 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't misinterpret the WP:RS. I didn't base my opinion on that to begin with. Simply, Chinese sources on Korean war are not reliable. (Wikimachine 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ksyrie, what is not NPOV in my suggestion? The US casualty numbers have been subjected to scrutiny by numerous historians over the years, and the numbers have changed accordingly as errors or omissions were discovered? So, it is fairly obvious that the number of US casualties is fairly accurate, and the only number in which there is any dispute, is whether the Chinese estimated number or the US estimated number of Chinese casualties should be used. So, I proposed listing both estimates, and labeling them accordingly as to their source, either US estimate or PRC estimate, and let the user decide which to use. Then if you absolutely want to have the Chinese estimate of US casualties listed, list it in the article, especially since the Chinese estimate of US casualties hasn't been subjected to review by subjective third-part sources. It's pretty plain and simple, and if we asked any Admins, regardless of country of origin, I think that they would agree. I think that allowing both US and PRC estimates of Chinese casualties is a fair compromise, when one really wasn't needed, as this could easily have been pushed to the point of completely disregarding the Chinese number. wbfergus 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes. In the article, you could talk about how the Chinese estimate was different. I'm talking about the FYI statistics box stuffs. (Wikimachine 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your words are partially right,I remember recently,the American Causuality figure has been changed,because someone found a mistake.So can you surely assume the rightness of this figure?And why you dont' use the chinese museum number in Dandong?This one 
,how can you question the chinese estimatie without check the american one?If the American figure is right,why someone can find a mistake?In a word,I sum up your wordsThe american figure is totallly right,and we dont use the chinese figure and choose the chinese estimate one.Dont you find you are biased?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't think I am being biased. As far as the number of US casualties, the American number has been verified by numerous historians and other subjective, third party sources, otherwise the errors wouldn't have been found and corrected. So, the 36,516 "battle dead" plus 92,134 plus 8,176 unaccounted for number (136,826 total casualties) is about as accurate as anybody can get, while the PRC claim of 390,000 American casualties is completely unverifiable and is not substantiated by any subjective third-party source. Just because a Chinese diplomat stated the number in a speech does not make it a fact or verifiable. What is POV about that? wbfergus 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding which set of numbers to use for the Chinese casualties, the link you provided (after translation) seems to suggest that it is not a complete list, where it says "This collection, filled the Revolutionary War not a complete list of martyrs gaps." It goes on with the next sentence by saying "The next stage", meaning more work needs to be done. I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but to me it says "currently, these are the numbers until we work on it some more" (my words). So, this implies an estimate as well. So, let's be fair and list both estimates of Chinese casualties, even though the Chinese numbers have never been subjected to a thorough, independent third-party review (historians from other countries) as the American casualty number (of US casualties) has. wbfergus 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with wbfergus. The difference between the American list of their own casualties and the Chinese list of their own casualties, is that the American one has been independently checked several times, while the Chinese list hasn't. Also, as wbfergus states above, the source you provided makes it seem as the list is incomplete. Parsecboy 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After lengthy ''discussion(?)'',we can reach the agreement?

message: Just go to this page Korean War Veterans Memorial#Troop statistic,and check the UN and American casualities number and the number in this article infobox,and the one of chinese consult 1.09 million.I mean,after you read this you will never critize my words.Let's the sources talk themselves--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As wbfergus pointed out, the 54k was the clerical error that included all US servicemembers that died during the Korean War, not necessarily in the Korean War; this has since been rectified. Read the footnotes for the sources next time. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I really really want hear someone apologizing for his attacking me as chauvinism,emmhen.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are arguing in a nationalist basis, and I will not apologize for calling you out on it. Deal with it. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone is blindly asserting true right true wrong,don't even to check the source in their native language.emhen.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you apparently don't bother to check the source either, to make sure you don't sound like a fool when you make assertions that are obviously seen to be illogical. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If noone is going to talk,I suggest we move on,ok?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us have jobs, Ksyrie. At 17:26 UTC that's 12:26 EST, most people are at work or at a lunch break. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes,but this number has been used for almost 30 years in US,no one ever finding the mistake in the free of press country,so how can you say the american number is true right?Moreover,you just take a look at the UN　casuality number in this article and this info box and the number of chinese consult,aren't you finding something?In fact,as far as I can imagine,China and North Korea maybe not truely separting the American Casuality number in their total estimate,but their total estimate seems more reliabe.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How can you explain the great differnce casuality number in the Memorial and the one in the infobox?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, am I talking to a wall or what? The numbers were revised since - all of them. I'm saying this 3rd time already. The US was a clerk error (all deaths in the time period). The South Korean - I don't know (the old figures were massive, I don't remeber now, but remember reading them long ago, before the Internet access, and wondered then if this was an error of some kind and seemingly really was). --HanzoHattori 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking to a Wall,I felt the same when I am talking until this finding.Yeah,The US is doing a good job in finding the real number,while China is also doing their own.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Following my assumption,not only China and North Korea could really seperate the estimate one country by another,but also The US and South Korea couln't.I can imagine when they are fighting they may know there's enemy but they don't really know from which countries they are fighting.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is flawed. There were quite a few countries participating in the UN mission, while there were only two on the Communist side; PRC and DPRK, and the DPRK's army was largely destroyed by the time the PRC entered the war. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can NK rebuilt their army?China entered in 1950,but the war ended in 1953--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, the only thing I want to say:you are talking to a very patient opponent, just listening to your opinion makes people think that they are talking to a wall.Kfc1864 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont' know why you said this way,let's take a look,the SK army were defeated By NK army before the NK army being defeated by UN army,since the South Korean army still fought after 1950,why North Korean army cann't？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that much, as after Inchon the NK army was not really fighting a lot- mostly it was China after that, and the SK army was only trapped in the Pusan Perimeter and quite a lot of them were left. Didn't know?Kfc1864 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention,everybody,look at what I found,I am sure after You read what you had seen,you will not critise the chinese estimate number anymore

message: The best solution in my view is the removing the estimate number from the enemy side,because it is in nature not as accurate as the number from their own country.If all of you insist on placing the estimate from enemy,I suggest we add somewords saying that though the total estimate may be more reliable,but the recognization of each countries maybe difficult.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree or not?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chinese estimated number of American casualties has been proven wrong, roughly 2/3rds higher than what the numbers actually are. If their numbers can be so wrong once, why not a second time? Those numbers have never been subjected to independent third-party scrutiny yet, as the American casualty numbers have been. It therefore cannot be proven either way if the numbers reported by China of their own casualties are accurate or not. China can't even accurately report how many people were killed during Chairman Mao's purges, somewhere between 40 million and almost 79 million, so how can their estimates of the Korean War be deemed reliable? Many of us are getting extremely tired of this constant bickering back and forth and are about ready to ask the Administrators for a final say. I personally think that the compromise I have offered you (several times) is the best you can hope for, and that more likely, they would say to just disregard the numbers and the sources you have provided as being unreliable and unverifiable. Let's reach an agreement before we have to resort to bringing in the Admins. wbfergus 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I am not making myself understood,In fact for the chinese death number,there's a number while not an exhaustive,which I found  it is a figure not an estimate.Secondly I recomended we both removing the estimate number from the enemy side,because it is in nature not reliable.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you think the NK figures, whatever they are, are reliable? According to them now, there were practically no Chinese aid to them! Look up for this, it's amazing how Orwellian is this country.  --HanzoHattori 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact,some NK fighters or division are previously in the framework of PLA,I though they really share the intelligence more closely than you thought.To some extent,they are sharing a lot of infos just like the different countries do in UN command.In other words,the US estimate is UN estimate,and the China estimate is North Korea estimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just can't remember,there are 3 or 4 divisions in NK once serving in Manchuria as the subdivision of Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army,at that time China and North Korea maintain a very close tie.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried a compromise, but if you think these figures are authoritative, then no. --HanzoHattori 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,but bear it in mind,there's no aboselute authoritativity,even the American figure itself undergo several change.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Okay, I've noticed that several people besides Ksyrie have been stating that "Human Wave attacks" did not occur. I've also noticed that these same people often quote (often without sourcing it) the Korean War FAQ from the [] site, which is CPOV, as it tells China's side of the Korean War. So, as I was looking it over, I noticed many different quotes people have used on various Wiki pages/articles, and lo and behold, I ran across this "interesting" paragraph (#9):
"PVA's main strategy at the beginning was the so-called "movement war", the main objective was to divide the enemy into isolated pieces and then use superior strength of force to annihilate the encircled enemy piecemeal before enemy reinforcement could be brought in, to do this, PVA uses frontal attacks and simultaneous penetrations to cut directly into enemy rear, cutoff MSR (main supply route) and withdraw routes, trap enemy units when they tried to redeploy."
This was preceded by this information (#8):
"PLA was basically a rifle infantry with almost no heavy weapons beyond mortars, their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war, and they lacked ammunition. When the Korean war started, PRC was less than one year old, and it was focusing on reconstruction of a nation which suffered 8 years of Japanese aggression and plundering. China's steel production was a meager 0.6 million tons (in comparison, US figure was 87 million tons). China had almost no industry, it could not make weapons at large quantity, especially heavy weapons and their ammunitions. A PLA army then had less than 10% of the fire power of a US  Corps, it had only 36 artillery pieces of 76mm or larger, while a US Corps had over 300 guns of 105mm or larger, PLA army had no tanks."
So, this leads to the question, if the Chinese admit that the PLA/PVA was so ill-equipped, with basically just rifles and little ammunition, how could they "use superior force" unless they actually did use the "human wave attack"? They admit having little ammunition, so this lends credence to some "stories" about human wave attacks. It also doesn't make any sense at all for any army to subject good, seasoned troops to any kind of frontal attack against dug-in defenders if they have little ammunition. It makes much more sense that an army would conduct fronatl attacks with troops they cared little about, whether they were those deemed "politically unreliable", ex-enemy fighters (KMT or Japanese forces), or just untrained troops, saving the seasoned veterans to attack once the defenders ammunition supply had run low, the defenders positions had been completely identified, and any possible reserve forces had been deployed.
The FAQ goes on to talk about the "First Campaign", which are the intial battles in northern North Korea. FAQ question #12 states "Although US/UN forces had superior firepower, including ariel bombardment, heavy artellery and tanks, PVA foot soldiers performed very well in this first contact with the modern US army, the UN forces were driven from Yalu back to south of the Chongchon river. PVA gained their first experience and confidence. Furthermore they concealed their strength. US estimate of the PVA strength after the campaign was about 40,000, a big miscalculation." 
Okay, so how can an army with basically nothing but rifles and little ammunition, inflict the kind of damage they did against US and ROK forces unless they did it soley through sheer weight of numbers? Ksyrie should also like the part were it says the US estimate of the PVA strength was about 40,000, when in fact the Chinese admit that they started the Korea campaign with 270,000. So, instead of overstimating Chinese troop numbers as has been claimed several times, it was drastically underestimated.
I did get an awfully good laugh though when I read the following paragraph (actually just a long running sentence):
"During the truce talks, PVA invented the bunker war, they would dug very long and deep bunkers in the hills and stock supplies there, when enemy shell the hills, they would withdraw into the bunkers, when the shelling stopped, they came out to fire on the attackers, after the surface positions taken by enemy, they would withdraw back into the bunkers, then PVA artillery would shell the enemy on the surface and they came out the bunkers again to assist the retaking of the hill."
This helps highlight how when the occasion seems worthy, some "stretching of the truth" can occur. Bunker warfare was hardly invented by the PVA during the Korean Truce Talks, as even the most novice historian can easily point out. Anyway, at least there's some useful  information on the site as to which Chinese units were involved were, etc., so the units listed at :Category:Infantry Divisions of the People's Volunteer Army can probably have some information updated. wbfergus 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: use superior force in my opinion means to attack from front,lateral and back,that's to say to encircle,not the human wave.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, you're highlighting how little you know about warfare by saying that. The only way possible for a poorly armed army to defeat one that is many times over superior in terms of firepower and equipment is through human wave attacks. The PVA had to outnumber the UN forces in a astronomical amount for it to be victorious. There's no other way around it. And your assumption of the meaning of "superior force" is totally incorrect. If it meant to use flanking attacks, they would've said "superior tactics", not force. Force applies only to the amount of soldiers you have, and the weapons they're armed with. So the only possible meaning there is that they used human wave attacks. Parsecboy 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dont know how the millitary personnel to interpret the superior force,but it seems these words can be interpreted differently .I just excerpt the whole sentence use superior strength of force to annihilate the encircled enemy piecemeal before enemy reinforcement could be brought in,it seems that the superior really means superior tactics.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where do you think that "superior strength of force" came from, if they had no tanks or other heavy weapons? That means a whole lot more infantrymen. Parsecboy 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not question me,it's no I who wrote the Superior strength of force,In fact,I thought the author，you,and I didnot fully multiunderstand,especially for the definition of words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not questioning the phrase, I'm questioning your interpretation of it. As a side note, the link that wbfergus posted appears to be broken. Parsecboy 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PVA uses frontal attacks (see quoted paragraph above) sounds more like the human wave, with the seasoned veterans being the ones who actually attack from the sides and rear, and the "politically unreliable" being the "frontal attack". wbfergus 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: But you omit the upcoming pharse and simultaneous penetrations to cut directly into enemy rear, cutoff MSR (main supply route) and withdraw routes, trap enemy units when they tried to redeploy.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even with well trained soldiers who actually have a weapon AND ammunition, this is extremely difficult for any soldiers who would manage to survive the frontal attack. It's fairly obvious to anybody with a military background (and even quite a few who don't), that what the remainder of the sentence means is additional troops (beyond those conducting the frontal attack and the encirclement) conduct those attacks. So, once again, it's sheer weight of numbers. These tactics have been used for thousands of years and are just basic military doctrine (besides common sense), regardless of country. And, the enemy rear, MSR, and withdrawal routes are usually guarded as well with armed "defenders", though nowhere near the amount of firepower available as from the front line forces, though this is usually where the reserve forces are located at (who are so well equipped) unless they were already committed to battle. So again, by China's own admission, their soldiers at the beginning (especially Chosin/Changjin Reservoir) were equipped with cast-off weapons ("their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war") and little ammunition ("they lacked ammunition"). So, there is absolutely no way troops so equipped could inflict the damage they did against technologically superior firepower unless they had overwhelming superiority of numbers, so they could exhaust the ammunition supplies and present more targets than could be acquired and engaged by the defenders. No matter how you look at it, that is just plain ol' common sense, otherwise the defenders could easily use their weapons and ammunition to shoot through the (basically) unarmed attackers of the "rear areas" (MSR, etc.). wbfergus 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean,the common sense,if Ona army had got superior number,and another is limited.It means that the front which the limited one can sustained is limited,that's to say their front is narrow to some points,but the geographically the superior number could just go attacking their rear or front,that's my understanding.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest that you re-read Battle of Chosin Reservoir. wbfergus 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah,this a well organized article,but there is no links I can verify.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: After looked at the infobox of this battle I found these:60K PVA fought after China won the battle there are 67.5K casualities,furthermore 30K UN troops defended after they lost the battle there are 15K casualities.It means that there are troops from the Moon who fought for Chinese,It's really amazing!--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out Ksyrie. I didn't notice that myself. Without knowing where the numbers came from, I wondering if some "casualties" wound up getting counted twice, like frostbite and wounded? I don't really know. (The following is meant as joke, no offense intended). But, with a country with over a billion people, what's a couple thousand either way? wbfergus 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you interpret your phrase But, with a country with over a billion people, what's a couple thousand either way?？，more clearly,so I would not mistake your meaning.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...didn't he already say it was a joke? Parsecboy 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it was meant as a joke, no offense intended. Just trying to lighten things up a bit here, we've been arguing so long. Statiscally speaking, a margin of error of 3-5% per hundred is still pretty darn good. With a total population of over 1 billion, an error of 1,000 is what, about .000001 per hundred? Something along those lines anyway, math is not my forte. wbfergus 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: They love quantity over quality. Good friend100 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human Wave" attacks 

message: Without reading between the lines of the Chinese wesbites and pub stories of veterans:
 Tactics of the Chinese Communists in the Korean War
 Excerpt from The Future of Warfare, by Bevin Alexander, 150-52
The first job of Chinese Communist forces when they invaded North Korea [in autumn 1950] was to stop the United Nations advance, which was nearing the Yalu River.
Although extremely limiting in some respects, the Chinese dependence upon the backs of animals and soldiers liberated them from roads and permitted troops to fight anywhere they could walk, whether in front, on the side, or behind the enemy lines. UN forces, on the other hand, were tied to the roads because their supplies arrived by truck. The roads, therefore, were vulnerable to being cut by roadblocks.
During the Chinese civil war, Mao Zedong and his commanders had developed a highly effective method of dealing with more heavily armed Nationalist troops. Peng Dehuai now adapted these tactics to the Americans and their allies.
The Chinese tried whenever possible to infiltrate through enemy positions in order to plant a roadblock on the supply line, in hopes of inducing the enemy to retreat to regain contact with the rear. If UN forces stayed in position, the roadblocks still were useful in cutting off escape routes and supply.
In infiltration and assaults against front-line positions, the Chinese moved largely at night to avoid air strikes and reduce aerial observation. In attacks they tried to isolate individual outposts, usually platoons, by striking at the fronts, while at the same time attempting to outflank them. The purpose was to defeat forces in detail by gaining local superiority. If they could not destroy enemy positions, they hoped to induce the opponent to withdraw. When this failed, they got as close as possible to the enemy so that, when daylight came, U.S. aircraft would be unable to bomb them for fear of hitting friendly troops.
Advancing Chinese units generally followed the easiest, most accessible terrain in making their approaches: valleys, draws, or streambeds. As soon as they met resistance, they deployed, peeling off selected small units to engage the opposition. However, if they met no resistance, the whole column often moved in the darkness right past defensive emplacements deep into the rear of enemy positions. There were many examples of this in Korea. In some cases entire Chinese regiments marched in column formation into the UN rear.
Once fully committed, the Chinese seldom halted their attack, even when suffering heavy casualties. Other Chinese came forward to take the place of those killed or wounded. The buildup continued, often on several sides of the position, until they made a penetration ---either by destroying the position or forcing the defenders to withdraw. After consolidating the new conquest, the Chinese then crept forward against the open flank of the next platoon position. This combination of stealth and boldness, usually executed in darkness against small units, could result in several penetrations of a battalion front and could be devastating.
Since the Chinese tried to cut the defending force into small fractions and attack these fractions with local superiority in numbers, they favored the ambush over all other tactical methods. As a rule attacking Chinese forces ranged in size from a platoon to a company (50 to 200 men) and were built up continually as casualties occurred.
The best defense was for the UN force somehow to hold its position until daybreak. With visibility restored, aircraft could attack the Chinese and usually restore the situation. However, Chinese night attacks were so effective that the counsel often went unheeded and defending forces were overrun or destroyed.
They were mostly a kind of frontline guerillas (night attacks, night movement, inflitration whenever possible) - the NKs instead used the WW2 Soviet tactics heavily depending on armored attacks for a breakthorugh (T-34 mostly), at least in early phases. --HanzoHattori 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They love quantity over quality. Good friend100 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, okay, guys

message: I had no access to internet for days,so it's a little late to pose these question.Mr. Killigan,Can you make your comment more clearly,when talking about the issue of more american viewpoint of this article,do you favor or go against this viewpoint？furthermore,do you really  think the death number isn't as important as the quality of article？What if the death number isn't important,why the DOD insisted on finding the real figure of american casualities?Please answer my question.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much the DOD insisting on getting an accurate number of US deaths, as it is (was) the families of those who died. The families wanted (and usually needed) the official acknowledment so that they could qualify for any benefits, such as burial, insurance, etc. As such, then DOD had to verify the circumstances of death for all of those claiming benefits, and match those up with their own records of the personnel involved, the units they were assigned to, etc. So in short, the numbers are not simply arbitrary numbers picked out of the air by a politician, diplomat, or other self-serving individual, as happens in many other countries. The numbers are based on real figures and actual unit rolls and histories and eyewitness accounts (usually after action reports), but as has been shown with the clerical error, (of also counting those who died in like Germany during the same timeframe), are subject to change as more "eyes" look at and question the process. So, at least as far as the American casualty number is concerned, it's about as accurate as anything that ever could be put together. To many eyes have looked at it over the years and to many families have worked to get the benefits due them for their service member's sacrifice, many times with pressure from both the news media and their elected politicians. wbfergus 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the death number really matter,but why Mr. Killigan find the chinese casualities is not so important than improving the quality of this article？Let's look at what he had said I just hope that you guys will stop arguing over something petty like how many people died, and instead work towards making this article A-class or even FA status (provided that you all work together).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's talking about improving the text of the article; if there are sections that are a bit skimpy, or need sourcing, and so forth. In the grand scheme of things, the infobox isn't really that important, it's just decoration. Just like all the pretty templates and pictures, it adds to the article, but the quality of the article is judged by the text, not the eye candy. Parsecboy 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the infobox isn't important,why bother remove the additional US estimate？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Chinese estimate of American casualties or the American estimate of the Chinese casualties? Parsecboy 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I talked about the importance of casualities in the infobox.Since you found the numbers are petty,why not remove the additional estimate？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it so important to remove the American estimate? It's reliably sourced, so it should stay.Parsecboy 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the infobox, the number of American casualties only needs the official US number, not the Chinese estimate, as the number has been subjected to scrutiny numerous times for many years. The Chinese estimate can be part of the article's text however, as it may be beneficial to other readers to see how China (mainly communist countries in general) exaggerate the losses of their enemies while minimizing their own losses. I have no problem however having both US and Chinese estimates of Chinese casualties in the infobox. Both sets of numbers are estimates, as the link Ksyrie provided (for the museuum) on the now archived page showed. Readers can judge the accuracy of the numbers based upon their own POV and other references. wbfergus 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are too confident to the american scrutiny,as I had found before,the american numbers differ largely,for some number,it is unbelievable wrong.Why not just keep a chinese estimate to make it more neutral and reliable.You keep on saying the american number is ok,ok,prefect,but when the american number fails,you react with the silence.I mean if you want to estimate or judge,comment on others,let other to do the same thing on you.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See my comment above. For these 3 choices of which set of Chinese casulties to show, I'd vote for #2, if that does mean for Chinese casualties to list both the American estimate and the Chinese estimate. I would vote against #1, and #3 would be a viable second choice with the condition that the Chinese estimate be included in the article's text along with the Chinese estimate of American casualties, so that the numbers are more readily apparent to the reader. wbfergus 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already had a vote, in the now archived talk page. We had all in favor of just the American figure for American casualties, 3 in favor of listing both for China, one for just China, and wbfergus was more or less neutral on the 2nd issue. Why do we need a second vote? Parsecboy 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Cydevil38's talk page, it appears that he has already gone through the page/contnet dispute problem before with CPOV editors, and may have missed the previous vote, and just wants to follow the procedures step-by-step to finally bring this major (petty) headache to an official end. Ksyrie appears to be pushing for CPOV, but browsing through his "contributions", he seems to have contributed to the quality of some articles. I have no idea how accurate those additions may be, as I do not know Chinese history very well. It is also apparent though that he been in sevral (numerous?) editorial content disputes, so it is difficult to acurately guage his intent. With that behind me, I am willing to give Ksyrie the benefit of the doubt on this article, chalking up part of it to a communication problem with the English language (as evidenced by his use of the language and writing style), part to just Wiki-etiquette, and part to understanding that he wants to try and present his country in the best light, as I'm sure we all do. However, I feel very strongly that only the American number of American casualties be listed in the infobox. Regarding the Chinese casualties, I personally would prefer that the American numbers be listed in the infobox annotated as an estimate, with the Chinese estimated numbers of both sides casualties being listed in the article's text, is the best and most fair (or balanced) alternative. This keeps the Chinese estimates of both sides casualties together and in the same spot, and since the Chinese estimates of American casualties are easily disproven through reputable international sources, they don't belong in the infobox. Allowing them in the article text though (properly sourced and annotated as "estimates"), should allow us to finally progress past this while still allowing Ksyrie to post his countries numbers. Since even the American numbers of Chinese casualties are at best an estimate, I feel this is a fair compromise. wbfergus 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely forgot that we had a vote. I apologize for that. So looking at the vote again, I guess the verdict has been decided with a majority consensus. So why are we arguing? Lets move on. As for my personal thought on the infobox figures, I think the current version is appropriate. When I read a paper on the Korean War by a South Korean Sinologist, it said that among various estimates on Chinese casualties(probably includes the wounded), the most conservative estimate, i.e. minimal figure, is around 500,000, and there are also estimates that go well over one million casualties. So it seems neither estimates are decisively reliable, hence, I think having two estimates available, which would also imply to readers that there are different estimates out there, is the most appropriate choice. Cydevil38 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Another point I forgot to address - as for American casualties, I don't think Chinese estimates should be used. It may sound unfair, but I wouldn't consider the Chinese government a reliable source of information, as any other totalitarian governments. Cydevil38 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries about forgetting about the previous vote. I agree with you, we really don't need to be having this discussion anymore, consensus is clearly against Ksyrie's argument. He's the only objecting party to the page as it stands. Parsecboy 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ladies and gentelmans,before you regarded me as CPOV or somethings else,have you ever checked what you had done and said?Through the whole dicussion,I perceived the obvious nationalist and chaunvinst bias,And the ones who had found the american number or figure is wrong,don't dare to make some comment.The whole article is regarded by 3rd comment as american viewpoint.Since you had all known the article isn't NPOV,why just add another chinese estimate or remove the american estimate to make the article more NPOV.If you keep on attacking me to be biased,I can only see it as the manoeuvre to avoid the biasd nature of this article.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you're misinterpreting what Mr. Killigan said. He said articles on the English Wikipedia tend to be written from a US/UK perspective, meaning that since this is an English language encyclopedia, sources from English speaking countries (i.e., US/UK) will be used more often than those written in Mandarin or Bantu, for example. Not that articles are biased towards the US/UK, but that more information is known of the English perspective. For example, there is a wealth of information on the Allied homefronts during WWII, but considerably less is known about Japan or China. You keep saying that the American figure has several different numbers. The numbers you provided when you first made this claim have been explained over and over again. An admin clerk made a mistake and added every single service-member who died during the Korean War timeframe (be it in Korea or in the states or Europe, etc.), not just those who died in Korea. This mistake was later discovered. The 3rd number you provided was the UN estimate of total UN casualties, not US. The Chinese estimate is demonstrably false, while the American estimate of Chinese casualties is just another estimate, as Cydevil38 pointed out. Per my comment above, Ksyrie, you're the only one with a problem with the infobox as it currently is. Take a hint, and drop it. Consensus on this issue is crystal clear. Parsecboy 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese and North Korean estimate of american casualitiese is also written in English.The american figure for american casualities got 3 versions,the mistake of clerk only explain the 2,but not the 3.the UN casualities is also written in English,so the US/UK perspective is not as accurate as you thought to be.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What 3rd number are you talking about? There are the two figures related to the clerical error. What is the 3rd American number that has not been explained? I searched through the archived talk page, and could only find 3 numbers you had posted, but without sources or stating where you got them. Parsecboy 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ksyrie, if we start citing Chinese and North Korean sources, then Kim Jung-il was born on Baekdu Mountain(he was most likely born in the Soviet Union) and the Korean War was started by the United States. Oh, and for your information, North Korea tries to minimize Chinese role in the war, that North Korea almost single-handedly defeated the U.S. invasion. Should we put that "fact" into the article as well, that Chinese didn't do much during the war? The problem with totalitarian governments is that they use false information as a means to control the masses. While this is also true, to some extent, in democratic countries, but division of power and freedom of speech in democracies work as effective counters against dissemination of false information. Cydevil38 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for that, and I suggest leaving the infobox as it is now. Parsecboy 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, but can somebody double check the numbers against the reference, just in case? I'd do it, but I'm getting ready right now to take a weeks vacation. wbfergus 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a nice trip. I checked the sources, and everything seems to be correct. Parsecboy 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi,Oi! this is turning back into a CCD!Kfc1864 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about it. I think this issue is done now. The majority of the editors involved favor leaving the infobox as it stands, save for Ksyrie. Consensus is blatantly obvious; if he/she cannot deal with that, tough. One Chinese user should not be able to disrupt an article, when at least 7 editors with many disparate backgrounds consistently oppose him/her. I move that the issue be dropped, and this conversation be added to the CCD archive. Parsecboy 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going Going Gone.Kfc1864 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the 3rd comment

message: See the Operation August Storm which list both the soviet and japaneses estimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does this compare with the Korean War? there's no mention of it.Kfc1864 09:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The casualities infobox show both soviet and japanese estimates--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again,this issue is over. But, as one last point about the reliability of the Chinese "estimate" of even their own casualties, the Chinese government and scholars can't even agree (or narrow down) their estimate of how many people were killed under Chairman Mao's numerous purges. The numbers range from 40 million to 78 million, which is quite a huge spread. If these numbers can't be narrowed down and/or verified by any official population lists of the various villages, towns, etc., what does that say about the reliability of any other casualty lists from the same timeframe? The Korean War occurred near the middle of Mao's numerous purges (1927-1976), so this is the only period of Mao's rule that can accurately report any numbers? I hardly think so. It's pure propaganda in a typical communist format. wbfergus 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:wbfergus,we talk here the casualities of Korean war.The different number of chinese famine is really common,because,there's no national census.BTW,the US causualities of Korean War failled for 40 year by a simple mistake without anyone knowing,the I cann't hardly believe their estimate of chinese and north korean casualities,especially when they cann't make their story sound plausible when they cann't find the reasonalbe casualities of their allied.I can say,the estimate of US number is totally worthless.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:wbfergus,use your mind rather than ear to caculate the simple number,1950,the population of China is about 500 million,a loss of 40 to 80 million means the loss of 8-16% population,in the demorgraphic,it's disastrous,in the WWII,the the loss of 15% of population of Soviet made its population stagnates for the more than 50 years,so how can China who lost the same percentage of population grew from 0,5 billion to 1,0billion in the reign of Mao？Can you just make a reasonable explanation？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Chinese have accurate numbers (census, roles, whatever) for the military during the Korean War, but not for any other aspect of Chinese life or society for a 40 year period? And I'm not talking about the deaths due to the famines, but to the intentional and deliberate act of purging those opposed to Mao's regime. Read Mao Zedong. And once again, the explanation of the difference in the American numbers have been repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated, and you still cannot seem to grasp the (very) simple concept that originally the number was the total of all Americans who died anywhere in the world during the Korean War timeframe, and that this number was subsequently revised to to only show the American casualties within the Korean Theater, those who actually became a casualty in Korea or due to actions within Korea (in case they died on their way back to the United States from wounds suffered in Korea). In short, the American numbers are immensely more accurate than the Chinese numbers. Of the two "sources" you like to reference for the Chinese numbers, one is from a politician who says they are an estimate, and the other one from the museuum states that it's a work in progress (not complete), again just another estimate. If you may have been referring to the discrepency of the reported UN casulaties, then again, that has been repeated numerous times as well. South Korea's casulties are incorporated into the UN numbers, and South Korea doesn't even know the extent of their casulties to this day. They keep revising their numbers, and therefore the total UN casulty numbers change accordingly. This has absolutely nothing to do with the American casulties or how how the United States has reported the total UN casulties. If the South Korean numbers were removed from the UN casulty reports, then those numbers would have been pretty much the same over all the years. That number only changes as South Korea has changed their casualty estimates. wbfergus 11:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I had said the the casualitie figure was presented in the recent years by local millitia authorities.And the list is incomplete as I had mentioned before.The purge calculation is never intentionally done by any chinese authorities,because,may once purged now in the office and some time he fell to the ground for a third time,just check Deng Xiaoping,who was in power after 1978,and he has been purged for 3 times,and finally hold the office.So it's not clear who in the end being purged or purge others,some once persecuted others be persecuted in the next round,vice versa.And really many died of this kind of political persecution.It's very clear that the estimate of UN causualities by US army should be more accurate than their estimate of their enemies,the UN force did job in a whole,not separately,if an american troop advanced with an korean or brith one,and the korean british one encounted the large number chinese or north korean troops and suffered great loss,there must somethings called the intelligence in common to be reported to the american troops saying like this our flank lost 1 division etc,so it's fairly obvious,the US got more accurate UN casualities estimate than chinese and north korean estimate.Just the common sense--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, drop it. You are not going to force your POV on this article. Deal with it, and move on. Consensus is clearly in support of leaving the article as it is. You may not have noticed, butWikipedia operates by consensus. Perhaps you should read that article, as you apparently do not know it. Parsecboy 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, Ksyrie, I think the casualty estimate is put on there because the number is not as outlandish as the Chinese claim her (which has bn provd 240,000 wrong.)Kfc1864 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: turely wrong,the core is that American only accept their estimate of other nation,but refuse receive the same estimate from other nation.As you can infer,it's totally against the NPOV,and totally amerciancentric,no matter which estimate proves to be right in the end,the right to express oneself is the essentiel right of all the human being.The behavior blocking other from estimating the American casualities reflect the hegemony.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese government sure takes that right seriously. The reason we accept the American number is that it's been reviewed time and time again by reputable historians, etc. The Chinese number has not been evaluated. Therefore, it is not reliable. Parsecboy 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no concensus made,the only non-binding poll serve only as the attitude collector.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  your telling us "right to express oneself is the essentiel right of all the human being" while trying to get us to take the 'estimate' of a nation who witholds this very thing from its own people. The irony borders on humor. No concensus? Here is the offical wiki policy just in case [] "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it" well we got everyone who is against = concensus. Also key part here "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute" read the Statement of complaint section [] change the names to fit here. I think you will see a parallel.--Xiahou 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-binding Straw Poll
Note that this is non-binding, and being used solely to see if we can finally put this issue (what numbers to use in the infobox for US and Chinese casualties) to rest by everybody agreeing to something. If there is not unanimous approval, I suggest we finally submit this to arbitration.,check the foreword.You can find hereTalk:Korean_War/Chinese_Casualty_Discussion#Non-binding_Straw_Poll.Just keep in mind,this poll serves solely to see if all the one can agree or not.And the propounder suggest if no everybody unanimous approval,we wil go to the mediation precedure,and when I tried to raise a mediation precedure,some editor just use it as a consensus?Strangely enough.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I voted,I presumed other voters really understanding what the propounders had said,and I noticed,some of them are native english speakers,so if not all the bodies don't understand the meaning of unanimous,you can check the wiktionary,unanimous.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyri, it's bcaus it was just about a fortnight aftr anothr mdiation.Kfc1864 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not I who raised such poll,and its purpose is well shown in its preface.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put forth the aforementioned poll to see if we could all agree to something so that we could finally end this petty argument. As I remember, Ksyrie is still the only one who is insisting on the Chinese estimates of American casualties be listed in the infobox. I suggested several alternatives, including listing the Chinese estimates (properly sourced) in the text of the article itself, and therefore the information would still be available to other readers to make up their own mind as to which numbers to believe, but evidently that is still not sufficient for Ksyrie. I started into this "discussion" in "good faith", but the constant bickering over this point even in light of reasonable alternatives has left me feeling like an UNC negotiator at a Military Armistice Commision Meeting at the Joint Security Area. The more this issue is pressed without acceptance of a compromise, the more likely I will be to resist any other alternatives in the future. wbfergus 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I also forgot, it appears that Ksyrie will not be satisfied until he either gets his (unreasonable) way or this finally does get to arbitration and his opinion gets slammed down as being unreasonable in light of alternatives being suggested and summarily rejected and overwhelming concensus against him. wbfergus 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you assumed good faith,you will accept the chinese estimate of american casualities,as I had shown,the historic figures proved to be wrong,and an estimate from other side will make the number more reliable.And I found no other estimates in other war such as the Operation August were banned from listing in the infobox,but why the chinese and north korean estimate cann't？Following the lenghty discussion,you cann't make such point clear,and just saying you didn't accept it.It's something most ridiculous I had encountered in wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthemore,User:wbfergus,If you are decent man,you wont forget the words you had stated in the poll？Before the poll start,you said,it's not for making a consensus,and after the result coming out,you overthrew what you had said,and claiming it's concensus.What you had said and what you had don differd great.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksyrie, you apparently have very little experience with disputes on Wikipedia (which is contradictory to your edit history. So perhaps you just don't pay attention during these disputes, as you seem to be doing here). Firstly, unanimity is not required for consensus. There are at least 7 editors who favor keeping the article as it stands. You are the only one trying to change things. Take the hint. Second, the purpose of a poll is to determine if a consensus exists. So, we can take from the poll that everyone (including you) voted to leave only the American number of American casualties in the infobox. Ok, done. All except you voted to keep the American estimate of Chinese casualties in the infobox. 7 vs 1? That's a pretty clear consensus. And no, assuming good faith is not required when one is evaluating the veracity of sources. Especially when one is from a Chinese politician. We've been through this time and time again. Seriously, drop it. I assure you in no uncertain terms that you will not change this article to suit your POV. You will not convince us with your tired arguments here. If you want to start an edit war, I have no qualms about reporting you or anyone else for disruptive editing. So stop wasting your time. Go somewhere else, or contribute positively. You've demonstrated time and time again that you're only here to advance your POV, not for the good of the article. Parsecboy 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dont kick the ball to me,the poll was supposed to be nonbinding and served only to see if all the one agree or not,if not,we continue to other dispute procedure.It's clearly written and all the one understood.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, Ksyrie: unanimity is not required to form a consensus. It's a good thing if we can get it, but on many things, it's impossible, because there's always one or two editors so stubborn that they won't back down. There's no need to continue in the dispute resolution process, because there is a strong consensus here. Why can't you accept that? Please don't avoid that question. Parsecboy 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not meaning to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think the concensus is as follows: Almost all of us are content with the way the infobox is. If you want to ammend the text of the article to also include the Chinese estimates of US/UN casulaties, feel free to do so. If you truly insist on this issue not dying until the Chinese estimate is included in the infobox, then go ahead and start the arbitration request and see how far that will progress. I really don't think it go very far at all, but that is up to you, Ksyrie. Personally, I think your efforts will be better utilized working on improving other articles on which you seem to have some knowledge and expertise. I was really hoping the vote could have accomplished everybody agreeing on something, but you are the only one who seems to think that the Chinese "estimate" is worthy (reliable enough) of being included in the infobox. wbfergus 12:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:wbfergus.Just chek what you had written.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another support to add the chinese estimate of american casualities