Talk:Korean War: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:46, 2 July 2007

Latest revision as of 04:29, 15 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|hide_find_sources=yes}}

{{talkheader}}

{{Censor}}

{{korean|B|top|history}}

{{American English}}

{{WPMILHIST

{{Article history

|class=B

|action1=WPR

|importance=Top

|action1date=15:15, 9 August 2007

|Australian-task-force=yes

|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Korean War

|British-task-force=yes

|action1result=reviewed

|Canadian-task-force=yes

|action1oldid=150186210

|French-task-force=yes

|Chinese-task-force=yes

|US-task-force=yes

|Korean-task-force=yes

}}

__TOC__

|action2=GAN

|action2date=11 September 2007

|action2result=not listed

|action2oldid=156893132

|action3=GAN

{| class="infobox" width="270px"

|action3date=24 April 2020

|-

|action3result=not listed

!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

|action3oldid=952595591

----

|action3link=Talk:Korean War/GA1

|-

|

*[[Talk:Korean_War/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

| currentstatus = FGAN

== British involvement ==

| topic = Warfare

|otd1date=2004-06-25|otd1oldid=5183757|otd2date=2004-09-15|otd2oldid=6183565|otd3date=2005-06-25|otd3oldid=15835821|otd4date=2005-09-15|otd4oldid=23264922|otd5date=2006-06-25|otd5oldid=60556749|otd6date=2006-07-27|otd6oldid=65894174|otd7date=2006-09-15|otd7oldid=75609285|otd8date=2007-06-25|otd8oldid=140552720|otd9date=2010-06-25|otd9oldid=370013179|otd10date=2011-06-25|otd10oldid=436107551|otd11date=2012-06-25|otd11oldid=499216625|otd12date=2015-06-25|otd12oldid=668490948|otd13date=2017-06-25|otd13oldid=787447808|otd14date=2019-06-25|otd14oldid=903370433|otd15date=2022-06-25|otd15oldid=1094901703

}}

According to the statistics on the sidebar, British forces were the third most numerous (63,000 personnel) involved in the Korean War. Yet the article as it stands makes NO mention of Britain's role in the conflict. Why not??? {{unsigned|68.58.222.95}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject China|importance=Top}}

I think its because they were removed from korea for killing all the jews in the country. Their leader, Adolf Hitler, was a known jew hater so it would make sense.[[User:80.254.147.52|80.254.147.52]] 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Korea|importance=Top|milhist=yes}}

Adolf Hitler led Britain? [[User:Compukid1|Compukid1]] 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject East Asia}}

{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=High}}

^^Dude what the heck are you talking about? Do you know anything about history? They should have at least added that major battle (can't recall the name) where the British and Americans surrounded North Korea and pushed them over the 38th. [[User:squirll000|squirll000]] 21:26, May 13, 2007

{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|mil=yes|hist=yes}}

No, I don't understand that comment either. But as for singling out the British contribution; The article seems to refer generically to UN forces, which is about what I'd expect in a general article. For specifics on British and Commonwealth involvement its best to go to pages on that subject. Try the "battles" links for the Hook, Imjin River, Kapyong, Pakchon, or the "unit" links to 1st Commonwealth Division. Or is it worth writing a piece on it for the Legacy section? [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject International relations|importance=High|un=yes}}

{{WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM|importance=High }}

== Medical staff ==

{{WikiProject Military history

|B-Class-1=yes

The list of nations who provided Medical Staff is included on the right hand side of the article, along with a list of those who provided troops.

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

" Australia, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, South Africa"

|B-Class-2=yes

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

If this is a list of all those who provided medical staff, then obviously it should include the USA, France etc.

|B-Class-3=yes

On the other hand, if (as I suspect) it is intended as a list of those that provided medical staff _other_ than those that provided troops, then Australia should not be on the list, as it is (correctly) already mentioned in the list of the nations that provided troops.

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

[[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

|B-Class-4=yes

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

== Change main article picture? ==

|B-Class-5=yes

|Aviation=yes

I just wanted to say I think it's kind of lame that the main picture for this article is of American troops, when this was the Korean War. I know America was involved in the conflict, but the main picture being of American troops makes them seem an especially important part, more important than other troops, of the war. Just wanted to point it out, maybe someone could get a good pic that really represents what the war was as a whole. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/75.4.11.117|75.4.11.117]] ([[User talk:75.4.11.117|talk]]) 06:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

|Maritime=yes

|Australian=yes

Let me put this in perspective. That picture is of [[USMC]] 2Lt. Baldomero Lopez and his men storming the Inchon harbor. While many nations fought in the Korean War, it was the [[United States]] that launched the amphibious operation that saved UN lines, and sent the NKPA reeling. If you don't like, tough cookies. Quit trying to make history fair and politically correct, and just accept what happened for what it is. --[[User:MKnight9989|MKnight9989]] 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

|British=yes

|Canadian=yes

I am with the anonymous user on this one. The picture of some whats-his-name, is not symbolic of the conflict as whole or fails to be a strong symbol of the topic. See article on WW2 for a sample of descriptive picture. Also, I don't think he's trying to make this war politically-correct, but the picture doesn't hold with WP:BIAS guideline, as you're presenting the war from the POV of US. I believe that if you included your description of this picture along with it, then the picture would definitely got removed. So it is really about NPOV. --Ondrej--

|French=yes

|Chinese=yes

Exactly. I agree with Ondrej. Tough cookies are for you. -Another user

|Korean=yes

|Cold-War=yes

I'll have to say that it looks funny how an open dictionary like Wikipedia is distorting democracy by pretending it is very democratic media letting people edit the articles. By reading these articles about Korean war which is another piece of work by some western guy, people would only get western/American view on this issue. I guess that the title of this article needs to be changed(leaving the main picture) to "How American troops have donated in Korean war" rather than just "Korean war" since there is no real Korean stuff in this article.(and hardly expected to have participations of Koreans) That way I won't have to be bothered reading some ridiculous discussions of their own. [[User:Kayoblue|Kayoblue]] 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

|German=yes

|Japanese=yes

== Flawed comparison in POW section==

|Middle-Eastern=yes

|South-American=yes

<blockquote>[[Prisoners of war]] were mistreated by all sides. The U.N. side was ultimately responsible for more deaths and violence than the communist side as there were more prisoners. As pointed out by Britain’s former Chief of the Defense Staff, [[Field Marshal (UK)|Field Marshal]] [[Lord Carver]]: “''The U.N. prisoners in Chinese hands, although subject to ‘re-education’ processes of varying intensity… were certainly much better off in every way than any held by the Americans….''”<ref> Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings, ''Korea: The Unknown War'', Viking Press, 1988, ISBN 0-670-81903-4</ref>

|Indian=yes

<br><br>

|Russian=yes

'''Carver’s assessment differs from other historical accounts which report frequent beatings, starvation, [[forced labor]], [[summary execution]]s and [[death march]]es imposed by the Communist forces on U.N. prisoners.'''<ref>http://www.fawm.gov.au/encyclopedia/pow/korea/index.htm</ref> North Korean forces committed several massacres of captured U.S. troops at places such as “Hill 312” on the Pusan Perimeter, and in and around Daejeon; this occurred particularly during early mopping-up actions. According to the [[U.S. Congress]]ional report: “''More than 5,000 American prisoners of war died because of Communist war atrocities and more than a thousand who survived were victims of war crimes. (…) Approximately two-thirds of all American prisoners of war in Korea died due to war crimes.''”[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LIY/is_6_90/ai_97756107] </blockquote>

|Dutch=yes

|ANZSP=yes

Carver's assessment was that of the <u>Chinese</u>, not the combined Communist forces (which included the North Korean forces). Thus Carver's assessment is not neccesarily different from other historical accounts. --[[User:Naus|Naus]] 03:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

|Nordic=yes

|African=yes

}}

In the China section it says: "However, the western forces suffer a disadvantage in air power, logistics, morale and manpower reserves." Presumably this is supposed to mean, "(Communist and) Chinese forces suffered disproportiante casualties because of their lack of air power, poor logistics, morale and manpower reserves." I think this needs to be changed

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Diannaa|date=March 31, 2010}}

}}

==Mig alley==

{{Controversial-issues}}

{{section lengths}}

in one of the pictures it says "Mig shot down over mig alley"

{{User:MiszaBot/config

this WAS KOREA THAT WAS IN VIETNAM{{unsigned|69.34.167.159}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 13

:You're mistaken, [[MiG Alley]] was in the Korean War. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Korean War/Archive %(counter)d

==Cleanup==

}}

I believe that the cleanup should be in the Korean War Legacy area because that in itself is a large part of the article. -- [[User:Warfreak|Warfreak]] 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

== Redundancy ==

|mask=/Archive <#>

|mask1=/Archive Review Discussions

I deleted Australia from the list of countries with medical staff in the Korean War because Australia was already listed among the countries that participated in the Korean War.

|mask2=/Chinese Casualty Discussion

[[User:JediScougale|JediScougale]] 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

== Canada? ==

It says Canada sent 47 billion troops....WTH?

==elections in the south==

According to this book [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vietnam-Foreign-1945-75-Heinemann-Advanced/dp/0435327089], the elections in the South were considered free and fair by UN obsevers not corrupt as this article states (unsourced). Could this be changed if no one else has any conflicting evidence?

==article too America-centric==

I find this article far too centred on American actions. It was a UN mission, but all I read in the articles is "America this" and "America that". come on, sure they were one of the largest forces, but that doesn't mean this article should focus on them, it makes it seem they did it all alone, which is totally not true.

--[[User:216.110.236.207|216.110.236.207]] 08:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok but it was a American dominated UN coalition.

:yea if it werent for the US u can forget about any hope for south korea winning the war, the US was essentially the mainman for the UN. also this whole war was largly about american foreign policy by the end stages.

::let me guess, both of you are American? this just reaks of POV!!! read it again: '' U.S. forces were joined by troops from 15 other U.N. members'' '''or''' ''The other foreign powers allied with the United States quickly agreed with American actions, volunteering their support for the intervention.'' This all stated despite the fact that it was a UN resolution, not an American declaration of war and inviting all its buddies to join up.

::--[[User:216.110.236.207|216.110.236.207]] 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article stinks of some random americans showing their flags off.

why not include full detail on other countries that also participated in the war, especially the two korean sides?

:Here's a suggestion: quit bitching about it here, find some good sources on other countries' involvement, and rewrite the article to include them. Complaining about pro-American bias here will achieve little if you're not willing to do some actual work to improve the article. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:: because people re-edit to turn it back to biased article again and it is frustrating? {{unsigned|122.35.20.64}}

If people are deleting sourced information, then you need to talk with an admin, at very least it's disruptive editing in violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am an American, so I am sure whatever I say will be met with ridicule, but here goes: America was the only superpower that participated in the Korean War. The ROK Army was a joke, and by '53 the NKPA was a skeleton of it's former self. It really became a war of UN vs. China. The United States provided most of the troops during the fighting, and has provided most of troops after the fighting. If you want to add more information concerning UN involvement, then quit bitching and just do it. --[[User:MKnight9989|MKnight9989]] 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::Please Yankees, you should obey wikipedia's rule of civility, telling us that we're acting like bitches and ordering us around to do this and do that. That is exactly why people like 122.35.20.64 don't edit before discussing it on the talk page first.

::--[[User:216.110.236.207|216.110.236.207]] 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop using perjoratives like "Yankees". No one is ordering you around. But you can't expect editors to take you seriously if all you're going to do is take the easy way out and complain about something, but not care enough to actually do the work required to make the fixes you're complaining about. In short, walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about America being the main force that won the war (I'm a Korean) but I agree that without the US, Korea woill be Communist by now. Or maybe not. Or maybe yes. If UN forces were not there, possibly the DRP would have won the battle for the Perimeter. But if the ROK Army had managed to break the line and go up to the boundry now, it would be status quo ante bellum probably, as the Chinese would have had no reason to help the DRP.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.[['''''User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes,so I think it needs to be slightly modified.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.[['''''User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::and it clearly says South Korea had about 100,000 more forces......'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 14:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::This really isn't a forum to discuss who was more important during the war. If the article doesn't discuss the RoK Army fighting enough, then find sources that document it, and include it in the article. 'Nuff said. As for "if the RoK Army had managed to break the line...", that's a pretty damn big "if" without the Americans. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I tend to agree with Parsecboy. If you think there is an American/Western slant to the article, then I would suggest to first, research articles in your own country (South Korea?). You probably have many excellent articles or other publications there that we do not have access to. Go through them and start filling out the histories of the various ROK Army (or other military) units that fought in the war (start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_units_and_formations_of_the_Korean_War). Once there is sufficient documentation on those unit's pages (for proper Wiki-linking), then come back to this article and make appropriate edits. Without references from reliable sources, it's difficult to distinguish complaints from valid criticism. The ROK Army of today is a far different and more capable Army than what existed before, during, and (for several decades) after the Korean War. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::OK,KOrean War Maintenance man.:)just a joke.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm British and I hardly like the Americans, but I certainly agree with *them* on this matter. Although other countries like Britaindid take part and were in several battles, it was the Americans who spearheaded the UN. This article covers a general view of the conflict, its causes and impact, go write an article on the battles fellow brits! [[User:Henners91|Henners91]] 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

== Timelines ==

North Korea attacks South Korea 25 June 1950

Task Force Smith at Osan, South Korea 5-6 July 1950

Kum River Line defense (Taejon) 11-22 July 1950

Pusan Perimeter defense 4 Aug -- 16 Sept 1950

Inchon Landing 15 Sept 1950

Liberation of Seoul (1st return) 21-30 Sept 1950

Advance into North Korea (west coast) 1 Oct -- 27 Oct 1950

Withdrawal to Ch'ongch'on River Defense Line and second advance toward the Yalu (west coast) 28 Oct -- 25 Nov 1950

Landing at Iwon and race to the Yalu (east coast) 31 Oct -- 27 Nov 1950

Withdrawal to Imjin River Line (west coast) 28 Nov -- 23 Dec 1950

X-Corps withdrawal (east coast) 1 Dec -- 24 Dec 1950

Withdrawal to Defense Line "D" (roughly along the 37th Parallel -- P'yongt'aek [W] to Samch'ok on east coast) 26 Dec 1950 -- 29 Jan 1951

Advance to Line Boston(south bank of the Han River south of Seoul - I Corps) 18 Feb 1951 -- 6 Mar 1951

Advance to Phase Line Kansas ( north of Seoul to just north of the 38th Parallel - east coast [2nd Liberation of Seoul) 4 -- 21 April 1951

1st Chinese Spring Offensive 22 -- 29 Apr 1951

Defense lines Golden (I Corps) and No Name (IX & X Corps) 29 Apr 1951 -- 19 May 1951

2nd Chinese Spring Offensive 17 -- 22 May 1951

Advance to Phase Line Kansas (3rd Liberation of Seoul) 22 May 1951 -- 10 Jun 1951

Advance to Phase Line Wyoming (Imjin River in I Corps sector north of Seoul to north of 38th Parallel in IX Corps and X Corps sectors) 13 Jun 1951 -- 4 Oct 1951

Line Jamestown (MLR in I Corps Sector -- West) 7 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953

Line Missouri (MLR in IX Corps Sector -- Central) 23 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953

Line Minnesota (MLR in X Corps Sector -- East) 16 Oct 1951 -- 27 July 1953

MAJOR COMMUNIST OFFENSIVES

NKPA 1st Phase (Seoul) Operations 25 Jun 1950 -- 29 Jun 1950

NKPA 2nd Phase (Suwon)Operations 30 Jun 1950 -- 6 Jul 1950

NKPA 3rd Phase (Taejon) Operations 7 Jul 1950 -- 20 Jul 1950

NKPA 4th Phase (Naktong) Operations 21 Jul 1950 -- 30 Aug 1950

NKPA 5th Phase (Pusan) Operations 31 Aug 1950 -- 15 Sep 1950

CCF (PLA) 1st Phase (warning) Operations 25 Oct 1950 -- 24 Nov 1950

CCF (PLA) 2nd Phase (main attack) Operations 25 Nov 1950 -- 24 Dec 1950

CCF (PLA) 3rd Phase (counterattack in Wonju - Chipyong-ni areas) Operations 11 Feb 1951 -- 17 Feb 1951

CCF (PLA) 4th Phase (First Spring Offensive) Operations 22 Apr 1951 -- 29 Apr 1951

CCF (PLA) 5th Phase (Second Spring Offensive) Operations 17 May 1951 -- 22 May 1951

CCF (PLA) 6th Phase - canceled and strategic objectives switch to limited operations 1 Sep 1951

CCF attack on Western & Central Fronts 6 Oct 1952 -- 13 Oct 1952

CCF Kumsong River Offensive (ROK II Corps) 14 July 1953 -- 20 July 1953

MAJOR WITHDRAWAL OPERATIONS BY US FORCES

Withdrawal to the Pusan Perimeter 3 July 1950 -- 3 Aug 1950

Evacuation of Hungnam 1 Dec 1950 -- 24 Dec 1950

Withdrawal from North Korea to Line "D" 2 Dec 1950 -- 16 Jan 1951

MAJOR UN OFFENSIVES

Inchon Landing & capture of Seoul 18 Sept 1950 -- 30 Sept 1950

Breakout from the Pusan Perimeter 16 Sept 1950 -- 27 Sept 1950

Operation Thunderbolt 25 Jan 1951 -- 20 Feb 1951

Operation Killer 21 Feb 1951 -- 7 Mar 1951

Operation Ripper (Flanking of Seoul) 7 Mar 1951 -- 4 Apr 1951

Operation Rugged (securing Phase Line Kansas) 1 Apr 1951 -- 15Apr 1951

Operation Dauntless (securing Phase Line Utah) 10 Apr 1951 -- 22 Apr 1951

Operation Detonate (3rd return to Seoul and retaking Phase Line Kansas north of the 38th Parallel) 20 May 1951 -- 8 Jun 1951

Operation Piledriver (securing Phase Line Wyoming and The Iron Triangle) 3 Jun 1951 -- 12 Jun 1951

Operation Commando (Securing Phase Line Jamestown) 3 Oct 1951 -- 15 Oct 1951

Operation Nomad and Polar (Securing Phase Line Missouri) 13 Oct 1951 -- 22 Oct 1951

PURSUIT AND MOPPING UP OPERATIONS

Pursuit and mopping south of the 38th Parallel 28 Sept 1950 -- 30 Nov 1950

Pursuit north of the 38th Parallel to Yalu River 5 Oct 1950 -- 27 Oct 1950

Iwon Landing and pursuit to Yalu River (east coast) 31 Oct 1950 -- 27 Nov 1950

LIMITED OPERATIONS -- 26 JUNE 1951 THROUGH 27 JULY 1953

(After peace talks initiated)

I CORPS

Operation Doughnut (to seize dominate terrain features in the Sobang Mountains) 1-4 July 1951

Raid on Kwijon-ni 3-8 Aug 1951

Operation Citadel (to move MLR forward to then existing Outpost Line of Resistance -- OPLR) 18-19 Aug 1951

Operation Clean-Up (attempt to sweep enemy forces from front of I Corps positions) 9-10 Sept 1951

Operations Clean-up II (to secure railroad running north from Uijongbu) 29 Sept -- 3 Oct 1951

Operation Polecharge (to secure dominate three hills) 16-18 Oct 1951

Attack on Hill 199 24-30 Oct 1951

Defense of Hill 200 5-10 Nov 1951

First battle of Porkchop Hill 22-25 Nov 1951

Operation Clam-up (ceased activity to lure enemy patrols) 10-16 Feb 1952

Operation Counter (to secure 11 key terrain features on outpost line) 7-25 Jun 1952

First Battle for Old Baldy 26 June -- 17 July 1953

Second Battle for Old Baldy 17 - 22 July 1952

Third Battle for Old Baldy 1-4 Aug 1952

Forth Battle for Old Baldy 18-21 Sept 1952

Defense of Outpost Kelly 18-30 Sept 1952

Fifth Battle for Old Baldy 23-26 Mar 1953

Third Battle for Porkchop Hill 23-26 Mar 1953

Defense of Outpost Carson, Elko, and Vegas 28-30 Mar 1953

Forth Battle for Porkchop Hill 6-11 July 1953

Defense of Outpost Dale & Westview 23-24 July 1953

IX CORPS

Operation Cat & Dog (to destroy enemy positions and capture prisoners.) 26-28 June 1951

Attack on Hill 272 and 487 12-15 July 1951

Operation Cow Puncher (to move Phase Line Utah forward to Phase Line Wyoming) 2-3 Aug 1951

Operation Ohio-Sloan (to secure new positions on Phase Line Wyoming) 8-12 Sept 1951

Operation Cleaver (Tank/Infantry raid into Iron Triangle) 21 Sept 1951

Operation Clam-up (to lure enemy patrols and capture prisoners) 10-15 Feb 1952

Operation Showdown (to secure Hill 598) 14-24 Oct 1952

Defense of Hill 301 24-28 Oct 1952

Defense of Outpost Charlie and King 28 Oct - 4 Nov 1952

(IX Corps withdrawn Nov 1952)

X CORPS

Attack on Hills 1059, 1120 and 1179 26-30 July 1951

Battle of Bloody Ridge (ridge between Hills 900 & 983) 27 Aug -- 5 Sept 1951

First battle of Heartbreak Ridge 9-12 Sept 1951

Second battle of Heartbreak Ridge 13-29 Sept 1951

Attack on Hills 851, 1220 & adjacent ridges 7-15 Oct 1951

Operation Clam-up (to lure enemy patrols and capture prisoners) 10-15 Feb 1952

Defense of Heartbreak Ridge area 6-7 Sept 1952

Defense of Heartbreak Ridge area 3-4 Nov 1952

Yeah, thank you very much.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

=='peoples houses getting blown up'==

I see alot of text in here saying that sort of thing. besides maybe just trying to get dirt on the US, it isnt exactly cited. I believe it should be removed or at least the North Korean and Chinese war atrocities should be documented as well.

:The thing is, the construction was so poor in the rural areas, it would relatively easy for even a hand grenade to wipe out several houses (based upon personal observations when I was in Korea in the mid-70's). So, in all fairness, any statements regarding "people's houses being blown up" applies equally to all parties involved in the Korean War. It's also part of war, even today with more accurate targeting mechanisms, that civilan property is destroyed and civilian deaths occur, especially when opposing forces are fighting in or around "built-up" areas, like villages, towns or cities. Thinking otherwise, especially during the Korean War era, is ludicrous. If your enemy is in a building, you will fire into the building. If there are a lot of your enemy in an area, you will call in artillery fire or other "mass-destruction" weapons, like bombs. That is simply what war fighting is about, always has been and probably always will be. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

== Big misunderstanding about Korean War ==

The author is missing essential points of the Korean War.

His/her points are limited on the superficial facts like conflicts between Capitalism (South Korea) vs. Communism (North Korea), who started war, and how many (innocent) people were killed (so cruely), etc.

I, as a Korean, list my points to the war as essential questions that are very clear in respect to what US/Soviet/Japan/Chinna took advantage of from the war:

1. Was The US (well) aware of that North Korea will make the war sooner or later?

If yes, then why US army left South Korea?

Very important point is that, after the Korean War,

US and Japan's Economy got better or Not?

What about chinna?

At least, they could avoid their own war against US/Taiwan alley.

2. Then why the US decided to stop war, instead of repelling the Communist?

3. Why Mao decided to support North Korea? Because of their comradeship?

At the time of the Korean War, note,

Chinna was also fighting against Zhang and US allies.

Mao wanted to hold their war in Korea as much longer as they could,

so that US/Taiwan ally had to postpone their war to Main Chianna.

4. What about J. Stalin?

He was kind of skeptical to the war because,

he knew that Soviet wouldn't get much money from Korean War,

even if N.Korea won.

5. Regardless of the war,

Should be the Korea a form of war-prize [indemnities] to US from

the Pacific War against Japan?

This is the very starting point of the Korean War

together with "Kasra-Taft Secret Conspiracy" to Korea.

6. Most Important!

Do both N. and S. Korean want the war again?

Then how about US, Japan, and Chinna?

Do they really want United Korea without any further war?

%%%%%%% Korean should NOT be the bloody yammy to them again.

:This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Yes, the US may have had an inkling that conflict between North and South was inevitable, but it was no more likely than the French-Vietnamese conflict of the 1950s, or any other regional conflict. In the period following the war, the US couldn't exactly keep soldiers everywhere there might be a conflict brewing. Remember, the US, despite its best efforts, is not a global policeman, in every place, every time. I would say the Japanese economy improving after the war had less to do with the war directly, and more to do with the fact that it was several years after the end of WWII, so of course it was going to improve. That and UN servicemembers stationed there surely helped stoke the economy. As for Mao Zedong, he supported North Korea because he wanted to supplant the USSR as the leader of the Comintern. There may have been motivation to distract the West from the Taiwan issue as well. As for your "Kasra-Taft Secret Conspiracy", perhaps you should provide some sources for that, because I've never heard of it. Do you think many South Korean economists want a united Korea? Not likely. Do you know the damage it would do to South Korea's economy to absorb North Korea? Just look at the German reunification at the end of the Cold War, and increase the negative effects several times over. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Ummm, what is your point? [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

== Dead Chinese soldier image ==

Ksyrie, why is it so important to remove this image? You say that it might be offensive. Well, Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not censored for things that might be considered offensive. There's no good reason why this image should be removed from the article. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:I have noticed that the wikipedia didn't allow sex and violence explicit images appeared.And this picture portray the bloody description of soldier.If we allow this kind of pics added into wikipedia without control,some more violent and gory pics will be uploaded and presented to the future wiki readers.Just imagining the Jews will see the explicit and high resolution pictures of [[Holocaust]],this kind of pics should be included in wiki,but not in a very high detailed and resolution forms.It makes the readers too uneasy.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 00:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::check this one [[Image:Deadchinesesoldier.jpg|300px]],the resolution is so high and too detailed.If you insisted on the same photo,I will prefer a lessdetailed one--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, Wikipedia does permit images that are blatantly sexual in nature. Just peruse [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sex the WikiCommons category for "sex"]. If your argument for removing this image is that it's offensively violent, I assume you just haven't gotten around to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IraqiKilledApr2003ByMarinesDefendingBridge.jpg]] or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deadparagermany.jpg]] yet? [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nguyen.jpg]]isn't exactly the most peaceful image, now is it? My point here is, you seem to be a pro-China POV editor. Accuse me of lacking [[WP:AGF|good faith]], but when you make highly POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Truth_about_Nanjing&diff=prev&oldid=136329396 posts like this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opium_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=135472653 this], I can't help but assume so. P.S., I scaled the picture to make it more manageable for other editors who wish to join this discussion. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:I have to admit that some of these pics made me uneasy like this one [[:Image:Deadparagermany.jpg]],it is the first time I have noticed this picture,hoping someone to change it to a more blurring version,and for other two pics you had listed,they are not so explict to give the readers too much bad impressions.It's hard to describe it in words.In brief,such too detailed violent pics shall be controled to be show to public.I will agree to restrict the vivid violent pics.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::For the talk pages materials,I meant no intention to hide my POV,but only limited to talk pages and not the wiki articles.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Ksyrie, those photographs are indeed disturbing but at least they expose people to the horrors of war, and they have good verifiability since they were taken by US military combat photographers in fact that same image of the dead Chinese soldier is used in a PBS article here[http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/northkorea/timeline4.html] on the Korean war. Regarding your question whether photographs of holocaust victims would be acceptable, we already have a large collection on wikipedia commons of stacks of bodies of concentration camp victims look [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Buchenwald-J-Rouard-10.jpg]. I don't think pornography and these photos can really be compared, these are encyclopedic, porn is just for sexual gratification [[User:Bleh999|Bleh999]] 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Why not someone upload some highresolution dead american bodies?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::If you have some that aren't copyright protected or at least fair use, go right ahead. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

== Battles of Seoul ==

[[Battle of Seoul]] Guess what. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 18:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't. So, each of several battles is described in literally few words. This is kind of stupid, as tens of thousands of people died. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

== Foul Addition ==

The total number of United Nations men is 1,205,605. Help me edit the total, my account is not working and I am too lazy to create a new one...

[[User:Richard the Crusader|Richard the Crusader]] 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

==Can someone remove the Chinsee estimated casualties?==

Yes,it is an estimated number,but from a rival's military intelligence,and in the wartime,all the involving parts tended to exaggerate their results of battle.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:Just like it's common for governments to downplay their own casualties? It's a sourced number, so it should stay. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::It is unbalanced,the article keep the dead chiense soldier pic,and gave an exaggerated death tolls from the enemy parts but without an photo to describe a dead american one and the overstating death tolls from the chinese estimation.Since you have got the idea the government generally downplaying the casualities,the missing of american one from the chinese pentagon will give the bias view from the readers.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Almost in their entireity, war casualties are estimates. Rarely has there been any conflict with accurate tolls of all casualties. Considering all of the horrendous artillery bombardments in the war, especially after the Chinese intervention, it's also not uncommon for casualty estimates to be derived from either counts of various body parts, or from seeing a "field full of the enemy (an estimate)", to estimating the corresponding number seen leaving. The American casualty numbers are fairly accurate, as any discrepencies would have been found and criticized loudly by family members and the media, who like to look for the government making mistakes, that's just the way an open government is. China and North Korea on the other hand, have had governments that restrict the free flow of information, especially to it's own people, so having inaccurate casualty numbers is far easier, either through deliberate action (as many in the West would claim), or through incomplete records from various commanders fearing the (very drastic) reprisals that come with failure. If you can present reliable sources of information that contradict any estimated numbers, feel free to present them. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I dont want to refute the casualities estimation from American DOD,but it is obvious unbalanced for this article which means to be neutral to reader.The Chinese Government didn't disclose infos(but nowadays we got the numbers) while in the Wartime,it is seen by many as a mean to protect the upcoming threat from the　USA rather than a propaganda.As for the times before 1970s,The USA didn't recognise the PRC,so the it was an natural instinct to hide the infos (what if the Americans did invade China?),furthermore the estimation number shoud be dubbed as dubious and the source (American DOD) should be included.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]] 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::The official Chinese figures are listed. These are just not really believed in the west (and yes, I meant the Pentagon). As for their massive non-combat losses - they mostly froze to death (possibly even more). The casualties included Mao's son. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the numbers change and a lot - it used to be 227,800 ROK dead and 717,100 wounded.[http://www.kmike.com/CasualtyLists/CasualtyLists.htm] Lately it was scaled down several times, and now we have just 58,127 combat deaths and 175,743 wounded. The US dead figure too turned out to be much higher than the real ones (after half a century(!), a clerk's error was discovered[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/06/04/korea.deaths/] - and since 2000 it's not 54,246 but 36,940 killed). --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:If people doubted the real numbers,a number from a neutral organization will be suitable,the one from the DOD is always under question.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::The enemy losses were scaled down too. The original estimates of the number of Communist soldiers killed were 520,000 North Koreans and 900,000 Chinese. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::no,I am not talking about the scaling dowm or up the casualities numbers,I am talk about the source,which is inclined to be misleading and dubious.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Who questions the DOD number? You? That's not notable enough. The number from the Chinese government is included as well. I'm sure there are many that question that number. So if we provide the numbers from both sides, it's neutral. To provide only one is biased. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::1) the number from american pantagon is dubious in nature,who cann't get the '''first hand''' reports,how can you relies on source provider who had nearly no one in the China at that moment? 2)the source itself is in nature biased,we cann't believe the one which is possible a propaganda in the [[Cold War]]--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 08:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::That sounds like anti-American bilge. First off, the Pentagon didn't have to have representatives in China. The fighting was in Korea, afterall. And there were how many soldiers in Korea during the war? That's pretty much first hand reports. Take your POV pushing elsewhere. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 12:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Furthermore,3)the link page of estimation is dubious,it was a columinst claiming the Pentagon states but not the from the American DOD.Yes the fighting was in Korea,but did the US Army could check the battlefield when the bullets were flying?The acceptable theory of counting casualities is the change in the registry but not the on-the-spot inspection.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::So now you're claiming that the BBC isn't a reliable source? This is getting even more ridiculous. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::No,I am not talking about the reliability of a third party news agency.You can use your common sense,one of the fighting parts couldnt get the firsthand sources and even they got their own number wrong.Furthermore casualities from the enemy side are always in debate,if you check the [[World War II casualties]],can you find any numbers from the opposite parties?Finally,the BBC article is a [[Tertiary source]],which is based on the Pantagon one,and the Pantagon one as a reliable [[Secondary source]] is in question,where we can find the [[Primary source]] of this [[Secondary source]],did the US army got any direct documents to estimate the chinese and north korean casuaslities number?If they don't got the [[Primary source]],how can you insist on citing this source?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, as a compromise, which I've stated on the [[Chinese People's Volunteers]] page, so we can get away from all this needless bickering, is having two lines, like "Chinese Casualties (source China) 200 dead, 50 wounded Chinese Casualties (source US DOD) 400,000 est." or something along those lines. It doesn't solve any problem, both sides will have different numbers, but it will become readily apparent to everybody reading the article and the battle accounts where the discrepencies may reside. Most non-Communist people already have heard (especially after the the fall of Soviet Communism), about how Communist governments have an absurd need to keep information from their people, and that what information they do allow out, is seriously biased to what their point of view or strategic goals are at that point in time. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::As your word,you are completely doubting the chinese sources,in fact the chinsese number is 100,000,american one is 400,000.But when you state,you said chinese one is 200 comparing the american one 400,000.You start the doubt from your conjecture not from the facts,so that is the point.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No, Ksyrie, that just reeks of POV pushing! I am a Korean, so I don't know if this will be taken into account, but I don't think 90% of the American Units there were casualties, and looking so, you are saying that the Chinese lost 4 less times than the Americans.Also the ''constant'' mentioning of image:dead chinese soldier also looks POV, as German,Vietnamese, and more nationalities have pics like it, and if you are thinking it is blood-lusting and POV, take into account that it is '''not''' color and nothing is seen!For the BBC, I'm sure it is reliable as the BBC is one of the biggest TV Corps in the world.Well, if you want a American image like that, Find it!

'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Sorry,it's my problem of wording,what I talk about is the casuality number of chinese soldier,and the 100,000 is the chinese source of chinese death tolls and 400,000 is the american source of chinese death tolls.We only limit the talk to one thing.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::And for the pic of death soldier,I tried once to link an dead american solider in death page,but it was removed quickly to be replaced as a dead german one.So why all the death pics are from countries out of USA?Do you find any in any articls of wars involving the US?NO,you cann't.Maybe it's something of system bias or not.I cann't tell.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, was the picture you posted on a free liscense or was it copyrighted? If it was under copyright, then it was rightly deleted. Again, if you have a free liscense image of a dead american soldier, post it. As for the estimated death toll, why is it so bad to have it on the page? Because it's the "propaganda of the evil American DoD"? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:The dubiety and uneutrality of Pantagon source is just one reason to doubt this number,and for another two reason where when how Pantagon aquired the [[Primary source]] for this number and the BBC where when how acquired the [[Secondary source]] from the Pantagon one is also in question.I just doubt,I may assume the Good Faith of American DOD of offering their intelligences to give the world a more reliable number.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::You are wrong though. The DoD is as much a primary source as the Chinese government. The BBC is a secondary source, not a tertiary one. If you are assuming the good faith of the DoD, then why do you object to listing the casualty estimate? And this is sort of off the topic, but the DoD number, while most likely a bit high, is probably more in line with the number of actual Chinese casualties, if you take into consideration the poor training of the Chinese army at the time, the fact that attacking forces take much higher casualty rates than the defenders, the Chinese army was primarily an infantry army, attacking a UN force armed with heavy armor and air support, and other factors. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I copy the first phrase from [[Primary source]] '''In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described.''',Did American DOD get the document of any '''direct personal''' knowledge of the chinese causality?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::If no further query,I delete the patagon number.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::The DoD number will remain, and your attempts to delete sourced information will be summarily reverted on the grounds that it's obvious anti-American POV pushing. The DoD number represents the casualty estimates during the course of the war. As such, it's just as much of a primary source as the Chinese estimate. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I gave three reasons but none of them you can refute.I use the logic not the view or something else.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::What were your three reasons for deleting it, praytell? I couldn't find any other than weak "it's American propaganda" claims. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::'''1) There's no [[Primary Source]] of the Pantagon number 2)It' not from a neutral organization such as Redcross 3)This page give a link from BBC,which is funded by British Government， not a independant news agency ，furthermore UK was also a fighting part,and this link didn't show how it get the info from Pantagon.'''--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::In that case, by your logic, the Chinese government's figure should be removed also. It's not from a neutral organization either, and the Chinese government controls all media outlets, so it can't be viewed as neutral either. Regardless, I have refuted the "primary source" claim. Perhaps you didn't see it. '''The Pentagon's numbers are as much a primary source as the Chinese government.''' BDAs (Battle Damage Assesment) happen after EVERY SINGLE BATTLE. I know, I'm an intelligence analyst, and review those coming out of Iraq all the time. Like I said before, but you obviously missed, the American number is probably more accurate than the Chinese one, for the reasons stated above. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes for the chinese one,they may got the reason to scale down the number,but it is the only minus,obviously they got the primary source,and the citing one is from a chinese government officer.And the BDA it seems refer to this term [[Bomb damage assessment]],an aerial operational assessment,you are using the bomb's number to calculate the casuality? And no matter how accurate the American can estimate,it cann't be compared with the number from their own army.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::The acronym BDA as I used it (and thought I clearly explained what it meant) does not refer to Bomb Damage Assesment. It stands for Battle Damage Assesment. It's used to track what enemy units are at what strength, combat effectiveness, etc. Thus, the Pentagon numbers for casualties are the product of those reports, just like the Chinese numbers are based on whatever reports their based on. So they're exactly the same when it comes to primary sources or secondary sources. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::As you had said,the BDA is to track the strength,combat effectiveness ,so what is the relation between strength and casuality number?In my mind,this report may be caculted like this,we estimated there were 2,000 troops,and we fired 10,000 shells,the average killing rate is 10%,so we got the 1,000 dead enemy.It's not something serious,only used to give the commander a rough situation from the battlefield,what if there were only 200 soldiers and what if the bad weather affect the parabolic curve?It sounds like the war is the competition of rapid fire pistol match,the one who had fired the most to win.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The relation between combat strength and casualties is fairly obvious. If the combat effective strength goes from 97% down to 63% after a battle, then we know that about 34% were casualties. How you think the reports are created and how they actually are are two totally different things. SITREPs come in from units as small as squad level, and go into creating the battalion, brigade, division, and corps intelligence summaries. Thus, the DoD numbers are very accurate, and are based on what the reports from the front lines say, not what some guy in the back guesses happened. My take on the post to which I am replying is that you are ignorant (I'm not saying you're stupid, you just don't know) of how the military makes its reports and such. You should refrain from making judgements on the veracity of these reports until you learn more about them. You also seem to be arguing based on your gut feelings about the subject, which is not the best thing to do when striving for NPOV.[[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:I can point two obvious errors,one is that the difference of combat effectiveness is casuality.The weakening of one troops were not all due to casuality,but also including the wounded,the fleeing soldier,the one who had to care the wounded,the reorganization,loss of the most effient battalion will significantly wrick the combat effectiveness but not to a comparing portion of casuality.Second,how can the staff measure the effectiveness?The wars were full of disguise and fakement.The troops are not someone who will way you to measure them with a rule.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::You do have a good point about differing things lowering overall combat effectiveness, however, some of those things (deserters, for instance) are negligibe. One side will not necessarily know the most efficient battalion in a brigade, nor would we know about any reorganization, so those are not factored into the combat effectiveness report. Moreover, no unit anywhere is ever at 100% CES (combat effective strength), due to vehicle breakdowns, soldiers injured in training or sick, etc. Only the number of men available to fight, weapon systems still available, that sort of thing, goes into it. For your second point, the staff takes the SITREPs and BDAs from the front line units and use that to make an assessment for the opposing unit's strength, casualties sustained, etc. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::As you have refered above,the combat effectiveness doesn't equal the numbers of soldiers and the decrease of combat effectiveness does'nt equal the casuality.For the second point,the staff get a assessement not a real number,furthermore you haven't answered the question of disguise and manoeuvre which may completely deceive the staff into make a wrong SITREPS and BDAs.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 00:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::::From the military's perspective, the combat effectiveness ''does'' equal the number of soldiers. Combat effectiveness in the literal sense is irrelevant to this discussion, as there are many things other than the number of casualties that affect it, such as the number of vehicles in repair, lack of ammunition, etc. The BDA is conducted after an engagement, so disguise isn't a factor. It's not hard to see 100 enemy soldiers come over the hill, and see that our forces killed about 20, or however many. That's essentially how a SITREP is created, at the front lines. Squad leaders, company commanders, etc. make reports back to higher headquarters, detailing the approximate number of attackers, what equipment, any unit identification if it can be found, how many casualties inflicted, how many suffered, all of those things. That's pretty hard to disguise. Pretty much the only way those reports can be wrong by anything more than a slight margin of error is if the enemy soldiers are all playing dead, and crawled off in the night. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ok,you had admit the inaccuracy or deficiency of SITREP,and these reports are only produced by front lines commanders,what they had known it just one squd or company but not a whole army,the sums of these reports doesn't mean the whole enemy army.For the BDA,for a failling battle,how can the losing part get the BDA from the battlefield,the reliable BDA in my opinon should only be done properly from the winning side who can leisurely scrutiny the battlefield.As you know the Battles in Korean Wars were almost the seasaw battles,so do either sides get their times or sources to do a welldone BDA?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 01:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I admitted no inaccuracy or deficiency of situation reports. That you think the fact that these reports are generated by frontline commanders is a bad thing underscores that you know little about how militaries operate. If they didn't make these reports, who would? Moreover, who would be in a better position to know the details? And yes, if you take the SITREPs from every single unit along the front line, and add them together, you get a pretty good picture of what's happening along the front lines for that day. Then you add in the reports coming from combat air support, etc., and you can keep track of enemy units' strengths. Intelligence gathering is also an important aspect of this process; listening in on their radio transmissions, using observation planes, etc. There is no "leisurely scrutiny of the battlefield"; it's all done during and after the battle. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest we do? I don't understand why casualty numbers show a level of how "good" a country is. If China lost that many soldiers then thats that. It doesn't mean that China is bad or weak. [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:I am not talking about the good or bad country,the american estimation number is one thing arrogant,which is based on a afterwar reports from where to know staffs,they certainly couldn't make the accurate one but pretend to get it. --[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::Ksyrie, you cannot make claims like "american estimation number is one thing arrogant" and expect to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. We use facts that can be proved; not what you think about the American military. This statement alone shows that you have a very strong POV in this matter. Stop trying to push your POV here, and let both numbers stay. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::See my words after it '''which is based on afterwar reports from where to know staffs,they certainly couldn't make the accurate one but pretend to get it'''--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

::::See my post above, and you'll see that they are made from reports generated directly after the battles, not long after the war ended. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::'''''Enough!''''' I'm starting to get crazy! This nonsense! Ksyrie you are right and wrong and so is Parsecboy. both numbers can be biased, just get to the blooming point where you can calculate the amount of bias on both sides, and think on whether how much the numbers could be wrong, and take a point where a number you can agree about is set!'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I never said the DoD number is perfect. I'm just arguing that it should be included as well, while try to convince Ksyrie that it's not "propaganda from the evil Americans". According to policy, there is nothing wrong with keeping the DoD estimate, as it's reliably sourced, and comes from a notable originator. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I agree!'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::And the fourth logical failure '''4)The total chinese troops number is 780,000,and the you know the final stage of war fought between chinese divisions and americans ones.The Pantagon numbers of chinese casualities is 400,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.So we get a 800,000 chinese soldiers unable to combat in the frontline.'''So if you can persuade youself,the amercian troops were fighting againt the atmosphere after 1951,I will accept you placing this number.moreover,when we had talk about the loss of combat effectiveness,you had stated that the woundeds dont count or are negligible.That's another major question.The loss of combat effectiveness is the loss of total number of wounded and dead,how can the Pantagon calculate the death toll from the loss of combat effectiveness？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not total, it's peak. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Exactly, the 780k is the highest number of soldiers the CPA had at one point, not the total for the entire war. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:I doubt your explanation,do you get any proof of the 780k is an instantaneous number？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::You don't have to believe me, read the top of the "Strengths" portion of the infobox. It states this:

::Note: All figures may vary according to source. This measures peak strength as sizes changed during the war.

::[[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok,for this point,it is not relevant to the casuality number.While for other points which I had stated such as the loss of combat effectiveness doesn't equal the dead soldiers,are not being solved.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::And One more thing,I have searched the definition of Combat effectiveness，here [http://www.herolibrary.org/p55.htm] here [http://www.answers.com/topic/combat-effectiveness]，but all of the definition emphasize the combat effectiveness doest equal to size of troops.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::What answers.com says is irrelevant to how the US Army calculates combat effectiveness. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 11:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Ksyrie,stop this dis, it is just causing trouble.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ok,I will not<del> ''make trouble'' </del>for you,while this number really make trouble for chinese.I just wrote to BBC to ask the contact of Michael Hickey,who had mentioned it.Wish he could provide the docs of Pantagon.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::The Pentagon, not the Pantagon.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

== Civil War? ==

It's general knowledge that the Korean War is not acknowledged as a civil war. More pointedly, this term is specifically avoided especially in the case of the Korean War due to the fact that it was a war that had much to do with foreign interests, and ideological clashes. Any academic source will confirm this.

Yes OK.'''''c'mon, we've fished a good one.'''''[[User:Kfc1864]][[User talk:Kfc1864|Talk to me]] 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty much a civil war. In many cases, immediate family members were fighting against each other. Even behind the frontlines, Soutk Koreans fought the South Koreans, and on a smaller scale North Koreans fought the North Koreans too.--[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 06:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:: By that reasoning, most battles/wars are Civil Wars. Germans fought Germans in both WWI and WWII, French fought French In both Wars, etc. They can hardly be called Civil Wars though. Many of the case of South Koreans fighting South Koreans were cases where after finding themselves behind North Korean lines, many South Korean males were conscripted into the KPA Army. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::No, I meant the anti-communist insurgents in North Korea, and communist (and even not-really-communist - see Jeju slaughter) guerillas in South Korea. The Germans and the French ceased to be one nation about 1,000 years ago. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

== Small error (?) ==

A sentance in section 2.1 caught my attention as a possible typo: "The South Korean Army had 65,000 soldiers armed, trained, and equipped by the U.S. military, and as a force was '''deficient''' in armor and artillery."

The term seems out of place. Did someone mean to add '''efficiant'''? I'm not exactly a Korean War scholar so I'm not exactly equipped to alter it myself, so I figure I'd bring it to the attention of the Wiki-folk.[[User:Reason turns rancid|Reason turns rancid]] 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:It probably means they weren't well equipped with armor or artillery, or if they were well equipped, then not very proficient with it, but I could be wrong. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:: See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/KW-Outbreak/outbreak.htm, at the bottom of Page 6. It states "The South Korean armed forces had no tanks, no medium artillery, and no fighter aircraft or bombers." [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following minor correction to the Invasion of North Korea section.

OLD: the U.N. forces the advance into North Korea.

NEW: the U.N. forces advanced into North Korea.

:Fixed. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

== Temporary removal of a confusing paragraph ==

I've just finished copyediting the Republic of China section and simply can't make out what this para is trying to say. If you wrote it (or understand it!) please let me know, or copyedit it yourself, before reinstating it. Thanks.

''As the PVA rotated about 2 million troops during the war, the casualty figures of some Western sources might, at first glance, seem excessive. For example, if the PVA had suffered 500,000 casualties (1/4 of all troops rotated) or 1,000,000 casualties (1/2 of all troops rotated), one might think that the PVA would have been so weakened that they would not have been able to defend the line, let alone mount any meaningful offensive, and since the battle line hardly shifted from 1951 to 1953, the untrained eye might think that the U.N. and Chinese, because they enjoyed a similar lack of progress, endured a relative parity of losses such that the high casualty figures should be regarded with skepticism. However, the western forces suffer a disadvantage in air power, logistics, morale and manpower reserves.''

<br />[[user:MIckStephenson|<b>mikaul</b>]][[User_talk:MIckStephenson|^talk]] 12:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Edits regarding Chinese Casualties in Infobox ==

The original "phrasing" of the casualty numbers reflected a POV. This edit leaves it to the reader which set of numbers they want to believe in the absence of other refernce material. Calling the Chinese number from a diplomat "official" while flagging the US number as "dubious" is POV pushing. This leaves it neutral. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yeah, Ksyrie, I thought you said you weren't going to "make trouble" here. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Number from China is not an estimation or something else,it is based on statistic.Whilethe US number is real an blurring one,so we leave the word estimation.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::Ksyrie, stop trying to push your POV. Consensus is against you, so please stop. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 03:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Parsecboy,you are strongly biased,how can the chinese number be deemed as estimation？they got every register book to calculate the casuality

::::::number.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 03:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not pushing to get a number removed or labeled as "dubious". Regardless, don't result to ad hominems, because it makes it seem like you've run out of arguments. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Both numbers are at best, estimates. The actual number is going to be somewhere in between, but nobody will ever know for sure. American "enemy casualty" figures are usually high, while the numbers reported from Communist governments are conversely, notoriously low. I'll repeat what I said in a previous section that Communist governments do NOT have it in their best interests to be forthright and honest with their people, which is one of the reasons why Communist governments restrict free media and Internet access. Many people from the former Soviet Union can readily verify this simple fact. Look at your source again, where it states that (the Chinese) "eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." Compare this number with other "official" numbers from the participating countries and see how much your "source" differs from them. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::you havn't to go so far by denying the accuracy of chinese number to make the Pantagon more legitime or reliable.The PVA is well organized,and every aspects of its struture are well documented.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I hate to break it to you, Kysrie, but '''no''' governmental organization '''anywhere''' is even close to being as perfect as you claim the PLA to be in terms of record keeping. You're living in a dream world if you think so. Especially if you're talking about the chaotic years of the late 40's to early 50's, when it was no more than a peasant army. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::This is your third revert, in violation of the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|3RR]] and I am now reporting you accordingly. I am trying to keep this one simple point non-POV, and you keep making it otherwise. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::You don't have to make such accusation,I didn't revert.It's you who '''falsified''' the chinese number as estimation in support your view.Can you find anything any source to explain why you are always trying to placing '''estimation''' under chinese number?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Furthermore,"eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." So,in your logic,I can also place estimation under the american casuality number,while I found the chinese casuality number is not conformed with the american estimation.Just comparing.I will add chinese estimation for american casuality.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I just added the China and North Korea estimation of Amercian Casuality.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Unfortunately, politicians and diplomats are not known for telling the truth, but quite the opposite, so using a politician or diplomat as a reliable source isn't very "authoritive". Anyway, once I figure out how, I will be submitting this for mediation and possibly arbitration pending that outcome. You have already been reported for the 3RR violation. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree with wbfergus on this point. The primary job of politicians is to lie to the public (note the cynicism ;) ). [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]], I am continuing this here, as it really violates the stated rules on the 3RR page. You claiming something is dubious and making a POV-pushing edit, without citing '''reliable''' sources (not a diplomat or politician) and somebody else reverting your POV position is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. Pushing for a POV is however in violation. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ksyrie_reported_by_User:Wbfergus ]] section since it really belongs here and not there):

:I am not sure whether [[User:Wbfergus]] really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]], we discussed this numerous times on the [[Talk:Korean_War#Can_someone_remove_the_Chinsee_estimated_casualties.3F|Korean War talk page]]. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is '''Pantagon estimate'''.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::: This is '''NOT''' the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at [[Talk:Korean_War#Can_someone_remove_the_Chinsee_estimated_casualties.3F|Korean War talk page discussion 1]] or [[Talk:Korean_War#Edits_regarding_Chinese_Casualties_in_Infobox|Korean War talk page discussion 2]] [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just like you do not beleive the estimated number from the US, I (and many others) do not believe the estimated numbers from the Chinese government. Just because the Chinese government (through their diplomat) says the number is smaller than what the US government reported does not make it "factual". Conversely, just because the US government reports a higher number than the Chinese government does not make that "factual" either. Leave both numbers listed as estimates from the respective governments, provide source information for the numbers, and let the reader decide for themselves on which number would probably be more accurate or an average of the two. If you remove the word "estimate" from the infobox, it will be reverted back and this article will be submitted for Arbitration through the Admins. This POV-pushing has been going on for to long to continue. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with you,we leave both number in the page and let the readers to judge.Furthemore,the American casuality number is not only released by China,but also North Korea.Maybe the 400,000 American casuality from China and North Korea is seen as laughable by some readers,the 900,000 Chinese Casuality from US is also deemed as an too inacurate one,if an army lost 900,000 men, it can't fight,it already collapesed.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::The flaw in your logic about the 900,000 casualties crippling an army is that at the time, the PLA had a standing force of over 5 million men. Over 2 million men were rotated through the Korean conflict in total. And if you look at it logically, when one side uses massed infantry attacks basically unsupported by armor and aircraft, against a well-armed, heavily supported, dug in opposition in good defensive terrain (and trust me, I've been to Korea, it's outstanding defensive terrain), the attacker is going to take murderous casualties. Looking at it through that perspective, saying only 115,000 Chinese soldiers died, and another 380,000 were wounded (a total of 25% casualties) is laughable. Compare with the Eastern Front of WWII, the Soviets suffered over 7 million combat deaths (deaths only, mind you, so not including wounded), out of about 20 million soldiers. That's over a third in just combat deaths. Add in wounded soldiers, and it's well over half. Those are the kinds of casualties an army takes when it makes frontal attacks, and the Eastern front was much more equal in terms of quality of equipment, or even tipped in favor of the Soviets as the war went on.

::In short, quit POV pushing. Nationalism has no place in Wikipedia, be it pro-PRC, pro-USA, or pro-anybody-else. And for the love of God, it's the P-'''e'''-ntagon, not P-'''a'''-ntagon. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Add 5 million Soviet POWs (most of them [[Holocaust|died]]). In fact, in 1945 Red Army finished with only 5 million soldiers - US Army had 10 million by then (and only 1 million or so the total casualties). AFAIR they lost 17 million or so dead or wounded. But 5 million was also the number they started the war with. (all numbers from memory) North Korean military was also "wiped out" few times over in the sheer term of nnumbers. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::I am very suspicious of your inference,the casuality of [[Chinese civil war]] is about 2 millions(?)，while including large number of army who had changed sides.It was a more large scale war comparing the Korean war.Ok,I will try to find some docs of chinese casuality.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 04:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::One cannot compare the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War in any way. They are totally unrelated militarily. The CCW was primarily a low intensity guerrila war until the later stages, when Mao had a strong enough army to fight conventional battles with the KMT forces. For much of the CCW, both sides were anemic in terms of weaponry, supplies, and training, especially in the 30s and early 40s. The Korean war, on the other hand, was fought by large armies, and on the UN side, by a well armed force. To believe that a 2 million man peasant army fighting a particularly brutal war for 2 years, using massed infantry frontal assaults, against a force much superior in terms of technology and firepower, suffered a casualty rate of less than 25% (dead and wounded combined) is sheer naivete and total lack of comprehension of war, outside of the movies and video games. Either that or it's the results of indoctrination from nationalistic history. Either way, it has no place in Wikipedia. Regardless, I am not pushing to have the PRC number labeled as "dubious" or have it removed outright, so don't accuse me of POV pushing. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::You don't have to impose your owen idea such as PVA being peasant army to remove the chinese and North Korean estimate of American casuality.You are suspicious of my inference to the chinese casuality,but only limited to what you have known and what you have learnt.In fact,if all the things go like the american thought,the result of war will differ.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::As for the PLA being a peasant army, read the article on it [[History of the People's Liberation Army|here]]. Recall that I have not argued for the removal of any sourced numbers, so quit accusing me of doing so. False accusations are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I'm not suspicious of your reference to the casualties of the Chinese Civil War, I'm telling you that you cannot compare the two wars in this situation, because they were fought in radically different manners for the vast majority of their durations. I cannot understand the rest of your comment. English is obviously not your native language; perhaps there is someone here who can translate more properly for you? As a last point, do not label edits made in a content dispute as "vandalism", as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&curid=16772&diff=141027547&oldid=141026248 here]. It's very bad form to mischaracterize a legitimate, good faith edit, just because you disagree with it.

::::::I removed Hanzo's signature from the topic heading, as it appeared to be there accidentally. Hanzo, if you intended it to be there, I apologize for removing it. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::As a side note to this "discussion", when I was stationed in Korea during the 1975-1976 timeframe, I talked with a few Korean War veterans, at different times, who were still in the Armies of both South Korea or the US. Several of them told me about some of the battles they fought in where they said that the Chinese did in fact use human wave assaults. Two different veterans also gave specifics of the human wave assaults they personally fought against in different battles of the initial Chinese intervention (in the open rice areas south of Kaesong and another a little further east of there), where they said the first wave attacked with rifles and only one magazine of ammo, and were subsequently mowed down by their (the US) quad .50 cal machine guns. The second wave would then attack carrying nothing but ammunition and were subsequently mowed down again. This was followed by a third and fourth wave who attacked carrying nothing, but would then pick up the rifles and ammunition from their dead comrades, and by then their (the US and ROK defenders) ammunition would be seriously depeleted or gone, and they were forced to retreat. Now keep in mind that a .50 cal bullet would probably have enough penetrating power to go through around a dozen or so bodies, as that's one big slug with a high velocity and a copper jacket. Add to that that it was fired from a quad .50 (four mounted together) which were adjusted to have the fire converge at around 400 yds out, and imagine the devastating firepower being delivered against mere infantry soldiers, unprotected by any body armor. Add to that the artillery barrages and air support, and then all the rest of the individual rifles, machineguns, and recoilless rifles of the defenders. These vets said they estimated the Chinese casualties in just these two battles at easily above 20,000 (apiece), as the rice paddies were covered with dead Chinese soldiers several bodies deep, and more just kept coming. I have never read of any written accounts of either of the battles, though I do remember reading many, many years ago (probably in the late '60's or early '70's) about the use of quad .50's against the Chinese in the war. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I doubt this. The Chinese tactics were to launch the human wave after approaching stealthy. Most of the infantry (2/3) indeed carried no firearms, but they had plenty of grenades. Most of the arms were Chinese "burp guns", not rifles. They had also various guns including Japanese and these supplied by the Americans to the Nationalists (many were former Nationalist-alligned soldiers). They had little support and heavy weapons. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I had read several writings of Korean War,the PVA assault usually occured in the Night to avoid the Aerial bombard,and heavy gunfire.It's totally different to what you had heard or something else.If they had nothing in hand,how can they fought？Do you watch too much Kungfu movie？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::This was supposed to have been during the intial Chinese assaults after the Chosin Reservoir, as the UN forces were retreating. My understanding was that the stealthy night attacks evolved later in the Korean War, during the battles for the various hilltops and ridgelines. During the initial phases of the Chinese intervention, they had to fight during daylight to maintain contact with the retreating UN forces, and were thus vulnerable to the heavy gunfire and aerial bombardments. As to how they could fight with no weapons, the tactic was using their superior numbers to drain the ammunition supply of the defenders, rendering the defenders superior weaponry ultimately useless. When the ammunition ran out, the third and fourth waves picked up the weapons and ammunition of their dead comrades and overran the defenders positions. Anyway, I've never seen this in print (except the fact that quad .50's were used against the Chinese infantry), only from stories relayed to me by a couple guys who fought in the battles. It's usually not the kind of story that gets put in print, except maybe for movies like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". :^) [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Ok,that's all from mouth to mouth,maybe it's true,but it cannt be sustainable.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::It was the North Korean tactic to make the enemy spent their ammunition on the "unreliable" or fresh soldiers such as the Southern conscripts, before sending in the well-armed veterans. I don't know about the Chinese, but many were former Nationalist troops, and most of them did not carry any gun unless they picked it up in the battle - but they did carry each several hand grenades. But as for the early stealth, remember they spent time before the Chosin offensive camouflaged (they literally disappeared first, before attacking again). Also remember many of them were former guerillas. (Oh, and as we are discussing I-don't-know-what now, check out [http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/souvenir.htm] - fighting the Chinese in the mountains.) --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea which figures are correct or not. However, while you are editwarring over it, could please not mess up the format. If you must, replace "estimates" with "figures" or vice versa. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] [[User talk:Str1977|^{(smile back)}]] 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

== Re-organization is Needed ==

This article become heavy more than 110 Ko. We should have to cut that into smaller ones because of navigator.[[User:Whlee|Whlee]] 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:No, the reason why we are not splitting it is that it is a big war, and it needs to be long. [[User:Kfc1864|Kfc1864]] 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

==Chinese estimate or Chinese and North Korean Estimate==

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.?[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::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.[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::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? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No...North Korean? Okay, I quit discussing anything with you. '''NO.''' The whole thing is unacceptable. All American soldiers killed are known by name. It was all recorded. '''HERE ARE THEIR NAMES, RANKS, DATES OF DEATH, AND PLACES OF ORIGIN:'''[http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/kwkia_menu.html]

Try to find someone who was ommited from this list. You won't. Unless you think they did the 1984 memory hole on them somehow. Or something. I don't care.

Stop disrupting this article. Go to the North Korean Wikipedia. I joked, they have no Internet. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

: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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Then you know very little about modern warfare. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been deployed to Iraq, but that's neither here nor there, because it's a totally different kind of fighting than in Korea. However, I've read quite a bit about modern warfare. If you doubt the murderous casualties that are inflicted upon an infantry army by a dug in defender, look no further than the blood-stained fields of World War I. In 4 years of fighting, over 10 million men died, another 20 million were wounded, and another about 8 million are "missing" (which, after 90 years, and still no clue as to where they are, that means they were killed and couldn't be identified). So about 40 million total casualties in 4 years of fighting. At the [[Battle of the Somme]], 20k British soldiers died on the first day alone, with another 57k wounded. In one day. This is what happens when an infantry army attacks dug in defenders, in a frontal assault. Advances in tactics between 1915 and 1950 are mitigated by the fact that the PRC and US militaries were ludicrously lopsided in favor of the Americans in terms of technology and firepower. If you are a student of History, and not only History, but Military History, then you'll understand what I'm saying. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I participated in a training exercise in Korea last summer. That country is nothing but fucking hills and mountains. Perfect terrain for the defender, not so great for the attacker. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:So after all,your reason of 900k casuality is based on your personal inference as opposed to source?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::P.S. myself. I guess I can't comment on the RfC, as I'm not an uniterested party.[[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::You are right，the terrain of Korean is the same as the South China--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

:::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 [[Talk:Korean_War#Statements_by_editors_previously_involved|here]]. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== RfC ==

===Summary===

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)

===Statements by editors previously involved===

My views should be pretty self evident from the summary provided, if anyone has questions for me, go ahead and ask. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

*For the casuality number,what we want is to find the true figure,the more accurate the possible,in fact there's a PVA Commemorative Museum in [[Dandong]],where the PVA crossed the [[Yalu River]].And they got an imperfect list of PVA dead soldiers.There's chinese news link here [http://www.chinanews.com.cn/news/2006/2006-04-28/8/723736.shtml],I guess all of you do not read chinese,so a tranlation of goole is useful,[http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinanews.com.cn%2Fnews%2F2006%2F2006-04-28%2F8%2F723736.shtml&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=EN&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools]If other don't believe this number,I will insist on placing the 400k amercian casuality number in the infobox.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

::That source is unreliable. It's highly POV, referring to the dead Chinese soldiers as "martyrs". Sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok,that's what I felt,you call all the chinese source POVed,I got enough.You guys are predominantly biased.If you cann't accept the reliability of chinese source,I will not accept the american source as the consequence.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::And you accusing the martyrs as POV is from your ignorance of chinese culture,chinese often avoid the using the death,dead,among other things to describe the deceased men instead using the more rhetoric word such as martyr,you can ask a korean whether they talk the same way,While I am sure,it seems they follow the same customs.Ok,what I have stated is that you cann't accept any source only based on your biased,not the facts.Refusing hearing from others leads to conflict.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you guys probably captured some dogtags from the dead or captured soldiers. You know, the ID things. I've got something nifty for you: take some, and look if they are NOT on the lists of the soldiers killed. Then you guys find these soldiers families who probably think they were kidnapped by UFOs or something (tens of thousands of them appeareantly, but you don't need very many of theem really), and go on the MAJOR STORY in order to totally embarass the US Army (which is now actually pays North Korea 100 million dollars for the remains of any soldier who went missing in the war, and yes, they have a complete list of the missing too). Yay!

Oh wait, this won't happen. Guess why. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:I will forgive your ingorance of chinese organizational structure of conscription.Every county got a millitia department to take charge of every aspect of conscription,take their names,families ___location,record their injuries and death,after the war,the soldiers are welcomed first by this unit.So they get every entries of the name list.The death list in Dandong is based on the sumup of all these local name lists.Unless,there's someone who joint the PVA outside of China,the name list will be exhaustive--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::Okay, this is (still) getting long and convoluted, and if I remember them as get done typing the first point (I'm just a "hunt 'n peck" typist), I have a couple points.

::1. I'm personally in favor of have both sets of estimates. It lends more balance to figures, and I also remember a few occasions during the Cold War with where the US DoD and the media reported some numbers of something which were countered by the Russians with a greatly different number, which was usbsequently proven wrong after the fall of Soviet communism and the opening of the Kremlin files. For the life of me, I can't remember the "incident" now, I'm not sure if it was from something from WWII, Hungary, Africa, Vietnam, or what.

::2. Ksyrie, that is very interesting about how the Chinese military compiles their lists. It has always been that way, since the very first days of Communism in China? I doubt if it was that way during the days of the Chinese Civil War against the nationalists, as who would be keeping the record book for the Nationalists? As I understand it, most of them were fighting not for money, but for their beliefs. Recording their families ___location, etc. wouldn't have mattered, as it was lost. I doubt if the Chinese military recorded such detail from Nationalist controlled territory until after they had captured it, and the CCW didn't end until May 1950, and the Korean War started June 25, 1950. That only leaves one month to get that organized in recently captured territory.

:::The practice of local 人民武装部 or similar organization(i dont' know the official english translation) at leat started before the [[Long March]],and during the [[Sino-japanese war]],this pratice was implented in all the CCP governed area.It's just one implentation of [[People's War]].1950 is already one year after 1949,and the whole China is already controlled by [[PRC]] government.After Dec 1949 the majority of populated territories were already controlled by [[PLA]],from then on,there was only relative small scale battles.So the setup of local militia departments are not a question.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::3. The Chinese Army was massive. From [[History of the People's Liberation Army]], in 1949 the Army "was an unwieldy, 5-million-strong peasant army". Now this doesn't say exactly 5 million, that's assumed to be an estimation. The article goes on to say that the "PRC also claimed a militia of 5.5 million". Again, another estimation. The section ends by stating that during the '50's, the Chinese military shrunk to 2.8 million (another estimation) by "demobilization of ill-trained or politically unreliable troops". Now, I can't say that China did follow Stalinist doctrine, but Stalin's way of "reducing" anything was usually through death. Since the Korean War was going on, what better way to either remove those deemed unreliable, or conversely, to have them prove themselves reliable, than to send them to the Korean War? At least 14,000 of them must have gone, since that's how many Chinese POW's refused repatriation to China and wound up going to Taiwan instead. How many of those "unreliable" soldiers wound up dying or were wounded and evacuated to China is unknown and open to speculation.

:::LOL,you are using the pharse in the [[History of the People's Liberation Army]]，did you ever check these phrases are referenced or not.And can you read the article more carefully,it said During the 1950'''s'''(which in my understanding spans from 1950 to 1959), the PLA with Soviet help transformed itself from a peasant army into a more modern one. At that time, demobilization of ill-trained or politically unreliable troops began, resulting in the reduction of military strength to 2.8 million in '''1953'''(The year ends the Korean War).Do you find anything strange or not？After the war,the ordinary way of Army was to demobilize them rather than keep a large standing army.China had been fighting from 1911-1953,it's too long for chinese people,so do you find anything wrong to demobilize the large army while facing no direct menace？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, and one of the ways they got rid of those politically unreliable elements of the PLA was to send them into the PVA to fight and die in Korea. That's why 1953 is the year they were down to 2.8 million, the same year as the end of the Korean War. Are you so blinded by your nationalism to not see the obvious connection? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::LOL,the politically unrelible members won't be sent to the front if I were the chief of staff of PVA.Do you ever know the bombardment of supply lines by the US airforce?What if the unrelible soldiers revolt or change the sides of war？What if their presence bring down the morale of whole army？<del>It seems I have to lecture the basic concept of war to you,while I found all these stuffs you should already know.</del>--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well you know what? You're not the CofS for the PVA. You know absolutely zilch about any military, any way of fighting, and any history of such fighting, and you continually demonstrate this by your ill-informed, propagandist posts here. The reason these soldiers were deemed "unreliable" was not that they would switch sides in battle, or flee in cowardice, IT WAS POLITICAL UNRELIABILITY! Now, in a Communist country, all that means is THEY CAME FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS. You're not lecturing anyone on the "basic concepts of war", you're only making it strikingly obvious how little you actually know about this subject. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I am sorry for my deleted words infuriating you,let's return to the topic,I just said a sane military leader shouldnt include the fighters who he don't believe,especially when fighting a more powerful army and the supplying line is bad.I really apolagize for my upcoming words.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::You're obviously not paying any attention to what I'm saying. The "unreliable soldiers" weren't unreliable ''AS'' soldiers. They were '''unreliable as members of the unquestioning masses, because they were members of the middle class'''. Many of them ''were'' excellent soldiers and seasoned veterans. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::You do know little the chinese society,at that time,the majority of chinese are peasants,why the PVA had to recruit the newbie in the cities?Even they wanted to the middleclass to be enrolled in the Army,the job will be more tough.Had some refered something about the the 5million peasants army?Look carefully it was peasant army not the middleclass who you thoght to be supposed to be persecuted.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Kysrie, many in the middle class did support the CCP. The KMT wasn't exactly the best government for a lot of Chinese; it was corrupt, forced to support warlordism, etc. After the end of the civil war, these elements of the CCP were deemed unreliable, because they came from a middle class background, and were purged. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Ksyrie, please see my comments below (currently at the bottom of this section). [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually, Ksyrie, this happens a lot in the communist countries. Stalin was mentioned - he used unarmed penal battalions to clear the minefields by their own bodies (confirmed by Zhukov, who was a butched himself). The unreliable/unwanted conscripts like the [[Holodomor|Ukrainians in the 1930s]] were used [[Battle of Raate road|as a cannon fodder]] by the Soviets. Same the [[Armenian genocide]] included the Turks conscripting Armenian men into unarmed units and working them to death. The North Koreans used the badly-armed South Korean conscripts as the cannon fodder, and it happens that many of the Chinese in Korea were both former Nationalists and essentionally unarmed (no gun, some grenades - fight). See this article for some examples: http://www.gendercide.org/case_conscription.html --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I had to explain every details of chinese history before 1949,do you know why the CCP won the civil war and survived?The reason is too simple,they are communist but de facto [[Land reform|Land reformer]],CCP promised to the peasants that after winning the war, the lands of landowner will be allocated to the farmers,so the peasants all support the CCP,and they even don't need to recruit the ordinary infantries from the middleclass or the townsman,except some senior officers,they just confiscated several great manors there's automaticly peasants who want to joint the PLA.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::You're simplifying a bit too much there. Were it not for US Secretary of State George Marshall forcing Chiang Kai-shek to hold a truce with Mao, the CCP would've been crushed, and Mao would be a forgotten revolutionary, nothing more. Read [[Chinese_Civil_War#Post-war_power_struggle]] for a more in depth explanation of the changes in the balance of power caused by George Marshall's temporary truce. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Don't overstate the truce triggered by GM,The Red Army had been fighting with the KMT for almost 20 years already at that time,furthermore,just imagine a state whose 80 or 90% population support (I made an assumption，at that time the townman is a little percent) CCP,why they will not win the civil war?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yes, they had benn fighting for 20 years at that point, but the majority of that was small scale, and 8 of those years were during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. The fact remains that some 1.5 million KMT soldiers were disbanded, and many went over to the CCP. That's a huge shift in the balance of power. I question your allegation that 80-90% supported the CCP during the Civil War. It wasn't until late in the war that the CCP actually overtook the KMT, and that was primarily because of the effects of the Marshall Truce; 1.5 million less soldiers, and no more American military support. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::80 or 90% is just my assumpition，see my words in the parenthesis,I made it from that-time peasant percentage of Chinese people.And the Marshao truce in my view insnt as strategical as you think,for the previous 20 years,there's no X truce,in my opnion(there's interupt by the Japanese invasion),if there's really no one in China support the CCP,it has already been ''eliminated'',considering the worldwide anti-communist wave after 1917.In fact,we cann't make the history to happen anothertime,maybe the Marshall Truce is really as important as you think,I can't tell.It's called [[Alternative history]] all right?I suggest you can tried to write a such novel,maybe it will become a really hit.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Maybe explain to me why so many (majority?) of the Chinese forces had no firearms. There was less than 1 million guns in China? --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::The chinese lacked heavy armature,but for the general purpose rifles they could fabricate it themselves,see [[Hanyang Arsenal]],and it is not the only one in China at that time,moreover,the PLA got the weapons either from the Surrended Japanese army or the changed-side KMT army,The Soviet also directly provide some after 1950.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::4. The Chinese PVA first conducted attacks against UN forces with 270,000 men ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Volunteer_Army#First_Campaign_.28October_18-October_25.2C_1950.29]]). Official Chinese sources ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Volunteer_Army#People.27s_Republic_of_China]]) are also quoted as saying that the PVA suffered 390,000 casualties, so the numbers show that many men were added to the initial force or esle the Chinese PVA would have dissolved. Also, the Korean War article states that only 70% of the PVA were were Chinese regulars from the PLA, so who were the other 30%? the "unreliable" soldiers? Again, it's unspecified and open to speculation, but by Western standards, as backed up by Stalin's actions over his years of power, it seems pretty legitimate that that is who made up the 30%. Take the "unreliable" soldiers, give them no (or defective or unloaded) weapons, tell them if they want to "prove" themselves worthy, they must attack. Most, if not all, wind up getting killed during the attack, depleting the defenders ammunition, and becoming propaganda for the masses about how these brave young men valiantly gave their life to protect their Korean brethren.

:::I have to say you are really <del>wicked heart</del>,did you ever consider why they send PVA rather than PLA？Why,PVA is to avoid direct national affrontation,because the PVA is namely Volunteers.But if all the PVA are comprised by PVA,the PVA became PLA,so the war become the officially fighting between US and China.30%(which is not sourced,I don't know whether it is an accurate number) will be a good excuse to emphasize the volunteer nature of PVA,while it is de facto ,a regular army.Do you get any docs to prove the unreliable soldiers are used as target？Why they had to use their own lives to deplete the ammunition rather to take some more clear tactics？e.g attack in the night and from the lateral sides?Did PVA must attack rather than defend the front？If they are less veteran why not place them in some less important front to do the jobs such as patrolling or convoying the supplies or defending some place？Or can these less experienced sodiers take the mission to fight the less-experienced allied army such as the South Korean army or turki ones？Your words make me doubt the american doctrine,do the amercian staffs often ''use'' the fresh newbies to set as target of gunfire？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::We all know why the PVA was formed, you don't need to tell us. You ask "Why they had to use their own lives...more clear tactics？" That's called a massed infantry wave attack. That's what the Chinese did in the Korean War. The whole point is to overwhelm a technologically superior but outnumbered force with sheer weight of numbers. Obviously, the guys who go in first are cannon fodder. So, you send in the ones you don't care about (politically unreliable) in first, so the reliable troops can do the actual fighting afterwards. Again, are you so blinded by your nationalism to not see this? [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Nationalism？you tag the chinese in Mainland as nationalist? lol,in fact the nationalist chinese are in Taiwan,not in the Mainland China,the textbook of chinese primary schools taught the kids to set free the whole world,not to gain prominence of China worldwidely.Do you really ever read the meaning of communism？Human wave attack really cause heavy casuality,but it was the only method without heavy artillery and air superioty.Why the PVA must send the politically unreliabe in first?The politically unrelible will not go across the Yalu River,if they are not reliable why send them to a critical battle field？What if they leak the intelligence?Do you get any basic idea of war?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::This is really sad. I'm starting to lose my patience here. Read a freaking dictionary. From [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism dictionary.com]:

::::::na·tion·al·ism –noun<br>

::::::1. national spirit or aspirations.<br>

::::::2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.<br>

::::::3. '''excessive patriotism; chauvinism.'''<br>

::::::4. the desire for national advancement or independence.<br>

::::::5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.<br>

::::::I am well aware the meaning of Communism, I am likewise well aware that true Communist ideology doesn't last much further than the revolution, if it was even there at all. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so don't give me that "free the whole world" bullshit, because that's all it is. I already explained the "politically unreliable" issue above. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::So where do you find excessive patriotism; chauvinism and behaviors?Just I talk about the chinese casuality number from the Dandong PVA museum?Why the one who pose this number is labelled as excessive patriotised and chauvinised?I have excerpt the first phrase from chauvinism '''Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group''',did you find the where comes from the extreme and unreasoning partisanship when I place the death number from the list? and Did I show the malice and hatred towards the rival group？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Where do I find excessive patriotism and chauvanism? In practically everything you say. Your attempts to censor anything negative towards China (the image of a dead Chinese soldier, your attempt to outright remove the DoD's estimate of Chinese casualties, etc.) Everything you've been arguing here has been largely based on nationalism. Your refusal to accept basic facts about how wars are fought, and the results of the manners in which they are fought, your refusal to accept that China, and Communist countries in general, have a history of distorting history to create a populace too ignorant to oppose their grip on power; it's all nationalism and chauvanism. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The negative aspects of China?the removal of Chinese estimate is not for the reason my patriotism,the reason is that I found this number is not reliable comparing the Chinese own number,while they got a name list(thought not as accurate as the american one)If we found something not as reliable as another why not remove it?And the dead PVA soldier PIC，I found its presence is not balanced,why there's no dead amercian soldier or south korean one?And when someone posing the second dead PVA soldier I can surely regard it as an obvious biased attemptation.So If I don't make any attempt to remove it,there will be a third,a fourth one.And your arguing my nationalism is just from your little experience of contacting of ordinary chinese people.comparing other ''democratic countries'' (which is one of the most using word for the American),China is relatively new to all of you considering the normalization of Sino-american relation.And don't know men tended to regard the alienized people as dangerous?The cold war ended at the end of 1990s,and don't you ever live in the propagandized demonized media coverage for longtime？Do I refuse how the manner of fighting?From which sentence you find I am refusing? And the distorting of history by communist country do relate the chinese casuality number?In the narrow sense,to enlarge the chinese casuality number will be a more clever method of distorting the history,just imagine if the one demagogic chinese politician give speech the the naive chinese people saying that ''the evil capitalist amercian killed 1 millions chinese good men,they are really really bad'' to stir the hatred，don't you find the exaggeration of chinese casuality do conform what you had said about evil propagation?Thoughout the history,to exaggerate the number will be a more appropriate method of propaganda,especially for the country who had been fight for longtime to protect itself.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::So there's no dead American or Korean soldiers picture from the Korean War in the article; this isn't [[Title IX]]. Have you gone looking for one already on Wikipedia or in the Commons? If so, and they're not here, have you gone to find any that are unlicensed or at least fair use? If no, then you have no right to complain about it. No, my arguing that you're very nationalist is not based on my "little experience of contacting of ordinary chinese people". Nationalism is not limited to China. I've encountered a whole lot of nationalism, even just here on Wikipedia, as well as in the real world. As an historian, I know it when I see it. You ask "Do I refuse how the manner of fighting?". Yes, you have questioned it. Wbfergus and I have both repeatedly argued with you about the fact that massed infantry assaults produce horrendous casualties, as well as the use of the "politically unreliable" soldiers as cannon fodder. And no, enlarging the number of casualties will not have a better effect, if one is trying to make the population believe your side won the war. Your logic is flawed in that argument. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I was once placing a dead amercian marine pic (pic isn't uploaded by me) in the page of [[death]],quickly it was removed,and someone isn't happy with it,when I tried to revert,he or she just replace it with a dead german soldier one.If you are denying the systematic bias of english wikipedia,I will say wow,though I thought maybe english wikipedia is one of the best wikipedia which follows the NPOV rule.For the Politically unreliable soldiers,you should know the PLA is essentially a peasant army,and to some extent,the peasants were very supporting the CCP.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::I cannot vouch for other editors on Wikipedia. However, I did look at the edits you made at [[Death]], and you in fact mislabeled the picture; It's a picture of an Iraqi Army soldier killed by Marines, not a dead Marine. I do not deny that the English Wikipedia is biased towards Western civilization, but I would say that of all of the different language Wikipedias, it's the most NPOV. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::In short, due mainly to Stalin's own documented tactics of purges, North Korea's constant falsification of pratically anything and everything over the last 50 years, and even China's constant crackdown on dissent and free media or religion, it's extremely difficult for most people in the West to accept most of what gets reported by Communist countries. It does make for more balanced reading though to at least see the other side's story, even if we do discount it. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::In a word,your statement are ful of logic flaws and often based on your imagination rather than the factfinding.They do not provide any useful infos.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Ksyrie, how much military history (of the world's military history, not just China's) have you actually studied? It has been a common tactic for countless centuries to use your least reliable soldiers first when confronting a "superior" (whether technologically or numerically) enemy, before using your better (or elite, well-trained, whatever) soldiers. There have been some occasions were this didn't happen, but not many. Usually generals send the least reliable soldiers first aginst a superior force, to either delete their ammunition (modern day warfare) or to tire the enemies sword (or spear) arm, and at least try to inflict a few casulties in the process, while pinpointing the position of the defenders and also hoping to draw out any reserve forces. Then that initial attack is followed up the more seasoned (veteran) soldiers, who by then will have pinpointed the defenders positions and can conduct a more "professional" attack. Rarely has any general throughout history attacked a "superior" enemy in the defense with their best troops first. Usually those engagements have resulted in a victory for the defenders. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yes,I know what you said,the [[Game theory]],in fact there's plenty of occurrence in the history.But why you are always posing the quesion of unrelible soldiers?IMHO,China is a well human sourced relatively,and to find 1 milllion or 2 million reliable soldiers or politically correct ones are simply easy.Considering the relible soldiers for all the army throughout the world fight better than the unreliable ones,why PVA must send unreliable soldiers to the front，while consiering the supply difficulty and toughnese of war?Just use your commen sense and a little logic.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Here's another thing to think about, Ksyrie. These "politically unreliable" soldiers probably weren't even unreliable. They were Chinese men and women, fighting for China. Sure, at some point they may have grown disgruntled with China, but they were doing their duty as patriotic Chinese. Just like most Germans who fought in World War II; they didn't necessarily agree with Hitler's policies (or even know about them), but they were doing their duty as German soldiers. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::It's more than game theory, it's been used for thousands of years. And yes, China is very well "human sourced", being the most populous country in the world. But, after winning a war primarily about idealogy, the next (and only) step available is to eliminate those who are opposed to the ideology. Having mass executions like Stalin did in one of his many purges is a tad noticable. If there is a conflict going on in your vicinity, what better way to eliminate those who you "think" oppose your idealogy than to send them to fight a war as front line troops? Now, going back to the percentages, whether they are right or wrong, 70% seasoned veterans and 30% something else, that means the 70% could just as easily been "guarding" the 30% "unreliables" and forcing them to be frontal assault troops. Now in a country as large as China is (and was even in those days), there must have been quite a few people who were opposed to Communism who didn't fight with the Nationalists. There were quite a few in Russia, and the estimates of Stalin's purges range from over 3 million to 60 million. He pretty much wiped out the educated people (teachers, doctors, lawyers, and even the officer corps of the Russian Army). It is not difficult to imagine that Chinese Communists did much the same when the oppurtunity presented itself. Look at Chairman Mao's many purges, or don't they teach those in China? You get rid of those who either do question your power, or those capable of questioning your power, and instead begin a new generation where everybody is completely indoctrinated in only your way of thinking. It's mere common sense that has proven itself over and over throughout history. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I can say this really happens in every country or every army.Since it happens throughout the century,I can assume it also happen in the US Army,maybe the US army are sending the Communism-symphasizers or some minorities the white don't like to the frontline as the cannon fodder.Or they just impressed the South Korean civilians as the supporting force or the Allied force which are minor and less equipped and dont' exercise too much command over the Allied commandeship,Just comparing the death ratio of Chinese soldiers and North Korean soldiers,and the ratio of American soldiers and South Korean soldiers,we can find that astonishingly the Amercian soldiers really get much low casuality percentage to South Korean ones (in fact the South Korean outnumber it )comparing the Chinese casualities to North Korean ones (The chinese outnumbered the North Korean one).So following your logic,the US Army are ''using'' the South Korean and other Allied force as food for powder.Are you satisfied with the inference?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, now you are really getting way, way out in left field. If what you are saying above is (or was) true, then the media would have reported it accordingly. Because unlike Communist countries, where the media is controlled by the Communist Party, Democracies have something called "Freedom of the Press", where the government does not them, and they are free to report what they want. This is why the American media has so many articles/news stories critical of the government, unlike what you experience in China. The Great Chairman Mao "purged" anywhere from 40 million to almost 79 million people opposed either directly or indirectly to his regime. That simply doesn't happen in democracies, as power shifts to often, instead of being "cemented" with the same people and the same single party forever. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Can you guarantee the media reporting what they want means that they will report what had ever happened.The freedom of press doesnot necessarily equal to report of truth.While to some extent,the freedom of press really report more truth than the mediacontrolled country.But it is to some degree,what if the re's no enough journalist during the War,and what if the journalist prefered the truth to what they like,and what if the reporter of ''good news'' outnumber the ''bad news''？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Now, regarding your question (from the below section, where we "shouldn't" be having any discussion), about the media. In short, the American media is more biased against the American government than against other other countries, though on occassions, this is reversed for a short time (like after 9-11). American media quite often shows demonstrations around the world against America, but rarely shows anything from other countries that are pro-American, like the yearly memorials in France at the site of the D-Day landings, or how well the French maintain the cemetaries of the American war dead. In the Chinese propaganda article, it is intersting to note as well that you are the one who flagged it with the NPOV flag. You seem to like using the American Propaganda article (which you re-label as "notorious propaganda"), but then you turn around and label the propaganda article about China as being biased. I wonder if you realize how flimsy your arguments become because of that, or how easily "we" could reverse your "logic" and and play the same game against your arguments. Now, since (below) you accused me of not answering your question, how about answering mine? '''How often does Chinese media report on dissidents, or those that oppose the Chinese government or it's policies? What happens to those dissidents?''' [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Your words '''In short, the American media is more biased against the American government than against other other countries'''only right one part.I will give my verison,the American media is more biased against the Amercian government than the X media is biased againt the X government.The American media is biased to the German like the Germany media is biased to the US.I can't find the appropriate words to describe,maybe one is called intrastate bias,another is interstate bias.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::We're going awfully off here. It's not the media that talks about history & Korean war - it's the American academia. Academia =/= media. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

'''Ksyrie''', please answer my questions above. You have posted numerous since I posted them, and you are avoiding answering them, though are quick to accuse others of avoiding your questions. This is really beginning to remind me of the Military Armistice Meetings I guarded in Korea at the [[Joint Security Area]]. Especially the one right after the [[Axe Murder Incident]], where the North Korean delegation (including the Chinese), stated that our two American officers weren't killed directly by the North Korean guards, but instead ran into the North Korean's who were merely standing there holding the axes. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:Can you just give me sometime to refresh？I am the only one of my side and you got three who continue posing different quesions.Using the language other than the mother tongue to debate is painstaking.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::That should tell you something. Consensus is against you, my friend. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::That's the funnest words I had ever heard in wikipedia,personnally,I have never heard some editors trying to simply go against an individual rather than their statement or source.Your word remind me of the chauvinism accusation,let's check what's the definition of chauvinism,Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning '''partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs''', especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::You interpreted what I said literally, that's not what it meant. It means that consensus is against what you're arguing, not you personally. Your objecting to anything that is negative for China is exactly that: partisanship on behalf of a group to which you belong. The dead Chinese soldier, the Pentagon's estimate of Chinese killed during the war, etc. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Ok,since you had added the hidden meaning of it,I wont go further.But this phrase is really really misleading,I mean,for all the man who can read english,and without your explanation.And the partisanship in my view,comes from your action,you insist on keepint the amercian estimate but deleting chinese and north korean one,moreover,as you haved seen in the page of [[death]],a dead american pic isnot welcomed.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::When did I ever argue that the CCP estimate of American casualties should be removed? I only argued that it should just read CCP, not CCP and DPRK. Don't accuse me of something I didn't do. And again, the picture you put on [[Death]] was not a dead American, it was a dead Iraqi, killed by Americans. Read the image caption yourself. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 12:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry,it's not you it's [[User:HanzoHattori]] who remove the Chinese and North Korean Estimate[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=141426860&oldid=141412135]

,and for CCP or CCP DPRK issue,why we had to delete the North Korean name?It is well presented in source?Strange enough.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, wow, Ksyrie, you are seriously trying too hard. Didn't you even see the body's in the Iraqi green uniform, completely with the Kalashnikov ammunition vest on his chest?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IraqiKilledApr2003ByMarinesDefendingBridge.jpg] Now I think it's true you are completely clueless here. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I am not a military professional,I wikisearch the US dead soldier keywords like that,and I found this is a dead US marine.(while it's not true).--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::In the usual WHAT reaction, I want to say I used the photo of the destroyed US tanks in the [[Battle of Okinawa]] for example. As well as this of the dead Japanese soldier. I don't know what the problem (your problem). --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::I mean the statisticly there's no dead US soldier pics in Wikipedia,considering US got everything in the past and now to upload a dead US soldiers pic (they fought many wars,they got more cameras or recording apparatus than any other countries ,their digitalized images are the most ample,their freelicensed photos should be the most released).Am I wrong?Sometime,I thought I am talking to noone.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

===Statements by uninvolved parties===

*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. [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 07:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese estimate" is a [[Propaganda in the People's Republic of China|notorious propaganda]] lie from the [[Censorship in the People's Republic of China|unfree country]] with [[Government control of the media in the People's Republic of China|no free media even now]], where access to the independent information on the Internet is [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|censored/blocked]]. American casualties, on the other hand, are known each by person and not contested by any independent source such as the free media. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 08:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:Keeping your illusion,in the Cold war times,every countries are Propagandizing,the American estimation number is from the capitalist information warfare,another [[Propaganda in the United States|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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Did take times to look what I have stated,[[Propaganda in the United States|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?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::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). [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::So you are avoiding my question whether the amercian media show the systematic bias to other nation and people？--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::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. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

This is something that we shouldn't consider seriously. The same old editors - the CPOVs- have been going down the list & creating disputes in everything:

*[[Baekdu Mountain]]

*[[Lake Cheonji]]

*[[Template:History of Manchuria]]

*[[Goguryeo-China wars]]

*[[Goguryeo]]

*[[Balhae]]

*[[Northeast Project]]

Definitely, you can't contest the American sources b/c America has a disciplined & non-biased academia while China is complete communist POV. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

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

== South Korean estimates ==

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.''[http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=728780]

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. [[User:Cydevil38|Cydevil38]] 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

South Korean are probably the same as American, and in general the UN. It's obviously for the killed and wounded - the US for North Koreans in 518,000 (520,000), and for Chinese 886,000 (900,000).

180,000 UN dead obviously include tens of thousands of South Koreans who were captured and executed, conscripted, or not swapped after the ceasefire (in all most of ~80,000). --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

:I really don't care. [[WP:OR]]. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

::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. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::Never mind then. Sorry. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

== A question for Ksyrie ==

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, anymore? I feel we've lost track of to what you are objecting. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 04:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

==After lengthy ''discussion(?)'',we can reach the agreement?==

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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

'''RECAP:''' I propose that the US casualty numbers only reflect the ones present on the website found by [[User:HanzoHattori]] at [http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/kwkia_menu.html]. The reasoning being these appear to be the latest round-up of casulties, free of clerical (and other) errors, and have passed review by historians, family members, and probably media. These numbers have not been disputed by any "affected" parties (like family members missing out on benefits, etc.), so they must be fairly accurate, if not totally accurate. Now for the contentious part, I propose that the Chinese casualties be listed twice, once with the label "US estimate" and again with the label "PRC estimate". Again, the reasoning being that neither side (US or China) has had these numbers subjected to scrutiny by historians (academia) so that they could be appraised by subjective, non-partisan reviewers. Being this far beyond the actual events, an accurate number of these casualties will be impossible to achieve, so estimates from both sides are the best possible numbers. The number of Chinese casualties made by the Chinese consulate has not ever been subjected to scrutiny by subjective third party sources, while the number of US casualties have. So, in fairness, allow the Chinese casualties as stated by the Chinese consulate, but label it accordingly. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

: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)--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::NPOV also means reliable sources. I reject 100% any compromise. We will put only US estimates. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

:::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.'''--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::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. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

::::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. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

: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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::Well, yes. In the article, you could talk about how the Chinese estimate was different. I'm talking about the FYI statistics box stuffs. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

::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 [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chinanews.com.cn%2Fnews%2F2006%2F2006-04-28%2F8%2F723736.shtml&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=EN&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools]

,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 words'''The american figure is totallly right,and we dont use the chinese figure and choose the chinese estimate one'''.Dont you find you are biased?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::: 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? [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

== Line ==

::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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason for distinguishing North and South Korea from the UN and China with a line is that they were participants in the war, not primary parties to the conflict. I don't know the reason why the line was removed. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the Korean War as a conflict between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

==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==

:Which specific edit are you referring to? [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::the edits you deleted. The infobox. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I really really want hear someone apologizing for his attacking me as chauvinism,emmhen.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::To others reading, it's this one specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=1286819891]; the user made 6 edits in a row without edit comment on various topics, most of them not in the infobox.

::Someone is blindly asserting true right true wrong,don't even to check the source in their native language.emhen.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't particularly care if a line is there or not, but to my understanding it's not common practice on other pages. E.g. [[Nigerian Civil War]]. Anyone else have thoughts on this? [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 06:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If noone is going to talk,I suggest we move on,ok?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::::These were sourced articles supported by academic researches, and I didn’t realize there were people like you who disagreed. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Just give some words ok?let's me know what you are thinking about.Feel free to talk to me--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::You misunderstand; I agree that SK/NK are arguably the primary combatants. My concern is of style; is a line to distinguish that common practice elsewhere on Wikipedia? [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 06:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It has been displayed this way on the Korean War page for the past several years. Every time I visited the Korean War page, it had been displayed that way. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Could you post a link to a past version of the page that had the line? When was the line removed? Did someone provide a rationale for the removal? These things all matter; just because something was one way in the past doesn't make it ok today. You have to prove that the change is useful. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 06:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::this was 2020 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=934551094 [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::it was removed by Remsense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=1280935260 [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] Do you have an opinion on the dividing line? [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::why did he/she remove the line? [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::if you agree with this, can i revert the changes? [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please slow down and wait for the discussion to resolve. It is generally assumed that once another party agrees you can revert. No need to make multiple comments; adds volume to the discussion. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 06:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your feedbacks [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

*While you might know what the line is meant to mean, I doubt that readers will. Infoboxes are unsuited and unsuitable for trying to capture nuance and detail. So, no thank you. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:I think I also lean towards this as well. A line is a little opaque: I certainly wouldn't have understood the meaning if I didn't read this thread. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 04:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::I can't understand why this even became a controversial issue in the first place. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 04:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:::We've explained why we disagree with you, I don't get what there isn't to understand. If you're wondering why you're receiving pushback, it's possibly because you've made like numerous edits to this page without edit comment of varying quality, and have lashed out at multiple people who've disagreed with you. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::::If there is no acquiescence or consent from you guys, I won’t make any edits. However, I can’t understand being obstructed from editing without any motivating reason. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:::::Could you also stop lashing out at others? It's good that you're leaving edit comments now, but can you see why others have decreased trust in you at the moment? Wikipedia is partly based on trust and reputation. When I see edits from users who leave edit comments, engage with others respectfully, and make consistently solid edits, they almost never receive pushback. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::::::I don't think this is something to get upset about. This is nowhere close to lashing out. you're the one lashing out at me. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:::::::You've absorbed nothing that I wrote, and you even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korean_War#c-Hanyang.study-20250423044900-Cinderella157-20250423043100 actively misinterpreted] what another user wrote to be in your favor. Not encouraged with this pattern. If this continues will begin to reach out to admins. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::::::::You are overreacting and trying to turn this discussion into a fight. I will end the conversation here. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::::First, the reason I didn’t leave an edit summary is because I had no idea there were people like you who disagreed. (If I had known, I would have left one.) Second, I’ve never lashed out at you just because we had different opinions. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:::::You've lashed out at others, not me in particular. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::::::Please stop. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 05:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:It sounds like you're saying you don't care whether I add the line or not. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 04:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*::That's not what they said. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 05:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*:::No, I am saying it shouldn't be there. It serves no useful purpose because the meaning is unclear ''and'' it is a distraction. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 05:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== The term "Reactionarists" ==

Ksyrie, thank you for bringing this page to our attention. First, let me point out that the number of American wounded on that page lists the total number of times an American went to an aid station for treatment of wounds, not the number of Americans who were wounded, which is 92,134. See (again) [http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/kwkia_menu.html] for the correct numbers. Next, let me point out that the page you just pointed out, list the number of 54,246. This number includes 17,730 people who died during the Korean War timeframe, but who were not in the Korean War. If you did your research, you would have noticed this. Now, take the number of US casualties from the page you pointed out to us (even including those who didn't die in Korea), andd you get 172,847. Now, compare that to the number you like to quote from the Chinese consulate, which is 390,000 US casualties. There is a difference of around 220,000. Can we now move on, as the Chinese consulate number was just proven wrong, even when using the number of US casualties that historians now admit was high? [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "reactionary" is subjective. I think it's more appropriate to use "civilian" instead. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 06:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, the UN number reported on that page [[Korean War Veterans Memorial]] includes South Korea. There is a difference between UN and US. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:"suspected reactionarists " They were not "suspected civilians" . [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::how are you gonna define "reactionarists"? [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I do not have to, its what NK's excuse was. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Then 'civilian' is more appropriate. [[User:Hanyang.study|Hanyang.study]] ([[User talk:Hanyang.study|talk]]) 08:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, as it is an allegation, unless you are saying they were only alleged civilians, are you? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have (however) changed suspected to alleged, as I am unsure that was NPOV. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 08:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Slatersteven on this. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== UN v US Flag in Infobox ==

Are you done with talking with yourself yet? I told you once, the casualties statistics were changed and are now much lower. The enemy losses estimates are lower too. I'm repeating myself. See also:[http://www.archives.gov/research/korean-war/casualty-lists/][http://www.koreanwar.org/html/korean_war_databases.html] --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason for uses of the US flag v the UN flag in the infobox? I'm inclined to change certain individuals like MacArthur and Ridgeway to the UN flag, along with an addition under strength given that they were commanding a UN force (albeit consisting primarily of United States forces). [[User:ExiaMesa|ExiaMesa]] ([[User talk:ExiaMesa|talk]]) 02:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

: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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:While on paper the coalition supporting South Korea was acting under UN authority, in fact military orders came from the governments and armed forces commanders of the member states. The UN assembly had little if any effect on the progress or outcome of the war. [[User:Mediatech492|Mediatech492]] ([[User talk:Mediatech492|talk]]) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:How can you explain the great differnce casuality number in the Memorial and the one in the infobox?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

::I agree. Keep the US flag.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I understand your point, but General MacArthur was the supreme commander of the UN coalition with command authority over all UN force in Korea as opposed to individual nations commanding their troops independently. Perhaps UN forces could be added in addition to the infobox? It's certainly not a small number, especially considering the USSR is listed. [[User:ExiaMesa|ExiaMesa]] ([[User talk:ExiaMesa|talk]]) 01:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Dpepends on what it is used for. It was a UN command, but they are not UN soldiers. Officially, they remained in the US military. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

== Corruption of the Rhee regime? ==

::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). --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on [[Syngman Rhee]] cites Max Hastings (1988) ''The Korean War'' (Simon and Schuster, pp. 235-240) as documenting notorious "corruption with everyone in the government from [President Rhee] downwards stealing as much they possibly could from both the public purse and from United States aid." In Rhee's his military, many soldiers went unpaid for months while others existed in name only as their superior officers embezzled their pay and sold arms and other supplies on the black market.

:::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this accurate?

: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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If no, what would you recommend as more reliable?

==Proposal==

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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:Do you agree or not?--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If yes, to what extent might this corruption have contributed to the "Communist insurgency in South Korea (1948–1950)", which preceded the war, and relatively rapid initial defeat of most of the South Korean military, which only stabilized at the [[Battle of the Pusan Perimeter]]?

Secondarily, was the Truman administration completely ignorant of the differences in the strengths of the militaries of both North and South Korea? Was he limited by Congress and used understaffing in Korea as an invitation for the Communists to demonstrate they really did want world domination, by force if necessary?

: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. [[User:wbfergus|wbfergus]] 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, [[User:DavidMCEddy|DavidMCEddy]] ([[User talk:DavidMCEddy|talk]]) 04:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you want to remove the "US estimate" and leave the "Chinese estimate", with total (NK+PRC) as "at least".... right? I think "at least" seems unreasonable - it's unlikely to be less, and possibly much more. I also hope you are aware the NK can't be trusted at all with anything. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think Rhee's corruption is well-established. But see the [[Division of Korea]] article. This describes the communist insurgency in the south as part of a maelstrom of events set in train by the hasty division of Korea in 1945. Corruption isn't even mentioned. But bear in mind that the South and the North regimes only had five years to transition from an occupied zone to separate states to a civil war. I think the Division article captures this quite well. I think the relative strengths of the South and the North militaries is controversial. I think it is well established now that the North had troops that had fought in the Chinese Civil War and the North was also equipped by the USSR with tanks etc and the best Soviet military planning. On the other hand, the South had an army that was largely not battle-hardened and was drawn from Korean troops which had collaborated with the Japanese. And they had no tanks. It is well-documented that the US administration did not see the North's military as a significant foe. This could be clearer in the article. I think there is too much speculation about Truman's thinking. It wasn't that complex. I think it is well-dealt with in this article. Once again, the chronology is important. Germany is divided in 1945. China is taken by the Communists in 1949. Now in 1950 there is war in Korea. [[Bruce Cumings]] has established that Truman knew very little about Korea when war broke out. While they have their problems, I think that this article and the Division of Korea article answer your questions.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

== Page imagery ==

: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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This page contains not a single photo of North Korean or Chinese troops. I find it rather strange that they should be excluded - as if to only permit the humanization of UN forces. [[User:RadomirZinovyev|<b style="color:#00AF6F">RadomirZinovyev</b>]] 13:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

::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. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:You mean aprt from the one of "Chinese infantrymen in action at the battle of Triangle Hill, 1952"? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

:That is correct. My mistake. However the photo does not show a clear image of the soldiers themselves whereas most of the photos depicting UN forces are close-ups. [[User:RadomirZinovyev|<b style="color:#00AF6F">RadomirZinovyev</b>]] 13:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

== Readding UN Collation ==

:::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While the United States did have the largest total number of troops and impact in the conflict but the separation of other combatants to a separate list diminishes the contribution and sacrifice of the British, Canadian, Turkish, and other troops during the war. My request is to readd the combatants to the info box. [[User:Pat J. McCarthy|Pat J. McCarthy]] ([[User talk:Pat J. McCarthy|talk]]) 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

::::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.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:No, it's just accurate.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 04:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)