Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:27, 20 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korean War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Korean War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Korean military history task force. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Chinese / European / French / Korean / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Korean military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. June 25, 2004, September 15, 2004, June 25, 2005, September 15, 2005, June 25, 2006, July 27, 2006, September 15, 2006, June 25, 2007, June 25, 2010, June 25, 2011, and June 25, 2012

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 31, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2006–April 2007) Archive 2 (April-June 2007) Archive 3 (June-July 2007) Archive 4 (August 2007) Archive 5 (Aug-Sept 2007) Archive 6 (September 2007-July 2008) Archive 7 (June 2008-May 2010) Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

First Sentence

Since its admitted that this war is still under cease fire, would it be correct to change the firs sentence to:

The Korean War is a war between the Republic of Korea (supported primarily by the United States of America, with contributions from allied nations under the aegis of the United Nations) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (supported by the People's Republic of China, with military and material aid from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.74.9 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a war between the North and South, with U.S. providing support to the South, and the other parties of Korean War like China, Russia (Soviet Union), and United Nations forces are not engaged in the war anymore. So, was is accurate, and we don't need to change the first sentence. --- PBJT (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim Il-sung's trip to China on April 1975.

A newly reclassified diplomatic cable of East Germany shows that Kim Il-sung asked for China's aid for another military conflict (likely a second Korean War) in the Peninsular. Source: East German Documents on Kim Il Sung’s April 1975 Trip to Beijing, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Could this document included somewhere in the article? North Korea emphasized a peaceful dialogue between North and South during this periods, and they intentionally provoked at the Joint Security Area a year later (Axe murder incident on August 1976). Any suggestions? --- PBJT (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Be bold, but not reckless. Document's itself should not be directly quoted/paraphrased per WP:PSTS, but a summary of Dr. Ria Chae's findings is extremely helpful. Jim101 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your advice, Jim101! I'll try to include the contents later. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock the page

UNLOCK THIS PAGE !!! bad data says that the vietnam country was divided = mixes up the wars !!1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.250.118 (talk • contribs) , diff

Could you please pinpoint which part of the article is misleading? As for the un-protecting this article, you have to ask to admins. Or you could be an registered user, and once you become an autoconfirmed after a couple of edits, you could correct the error by yourself. Best, ---PBJT (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Red Herring. None of the places where Vietnam is mentioned have any inaccuracies. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, as long as people keeps on jumping into the article and start editing like this, I doubt this article will ever be unlocked. Jim101 (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

this shows the bias of this article pretty clearly, only researchers from America are reliable? really? You have to realize stories from both sides are obviously full of lies. It's not wise to only show the lies from one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, People's Daily and Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China are excellent and must read sources in its brilliant analysis of Korean War history and its exclusion means censorship against Chinese...this is the exact kind of BS that prevents this page from unlocked in the first place. Jim101 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Transparency is the issue. Democratic societies have oppositions that force the truth to be revealed, however unpleasant. This is not present on the opposite side.

Keep it locked. Forever, if necessary. Student7 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I will say though that with the number of complaints the page receives, I would eventually like to rework some of the sources so that the majority of citations are to 3rd party books. —Ed! 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

POV & Non-Neutral parts of article

What can be done about these? There seems to be several POV and biased parts of this article, and some statements with practically no legitimate sourcing. One example is the text "With Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong fighting over the control of the Korean Peninsula,", using Voice of America (are you kidding me?) as a source. This article needs some Non-POV clean up. Majin Takeru (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, a lot of material has been kept one sided(especially towards south korea) in whole article. Clarificationgiven (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We've been continuing to discuss solutions to this problem, but it's very difficult in the Korean War. Both China and North Korea have not been very forthcoming with neutral information unhindered by propaganda. There are some independent books written on the matter which should be worked in. —Ed! 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Majin Takeru: It's not surprising that a self-described communist who "supports Chinese unification at all costs including military intervention" would feel that way; however, the bias runs very far in the opposite direction.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Numbers can't be right.

The beginning of racial integration efforts in the U.S. military began during the Korean War, where African Americans fought in integrated units for the first time. Among the 1.8 million American soldiers who fought in the Korean War there were more than 100,000 African Americans.

These number can't be right. Otherwise whole article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.240.104.47 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Combat strength of U.S. combat forces is listed in the article as 302,000; but not all military personnel were combat forces. Even so the number 1.8 million is extremely high, unless it includes all US personnel that have served in Korea from 1950 to present day. These numbers need to be checked and clarification made. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

New edits seem to have made some very odd changes, additions, deletions and modifications. For example, a user added "In this case, the assumption proved correct" and cited Wainstock 1999. This appears to be an editorial statement, not a sourced reference to Wainstock. Further removals and additions seem unsupported. I would like to see an explanation here. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Check the edit history. Student7 added an even more controversial statement that all communists were controlled by Moscow. It probably should be removed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to changes made by you, not Student7. You are the one who added "In this case, the assumption proved correct" and other claims, and removed sourced material. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Viriditas failed to check edit history as requested. Student7 ascribed the claim that all communists in the world were controlled by Moscow to Wainstock. I watered it down because it was blatantly POV. I avoided total removal to avoid antagonizing anyone. Now, you're grasping for straws to attack me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I recognize you. You are the one who added "In this case, the assumption proved correct". Does the source support that statement? You also removed a lot of material. Could you explain your edits please? I've asked you three times now and you've provided no response here at all. Why did you make these edits? What is the reason for the removal of one POV and the promotion of another? Do you understand the NPOV policy? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games with you. I changed "the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow" to "in this case, the assumption proved correct". I agree that the claim is based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have to provide an explanation for all 500-plus bytes you insist on removing, but you have nothing. I'm willing to discuss anything. Don't patronize me; I don't ask you if you understand what original research means even though you employ it frequently, such as when writing about Paul Ryan's "alleged" enjoyment of Rage Against the Machine. I know that you understand Misplaced Pages policy--you simply choose to ignore it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your three responses indicate you are only interested in playing games. I've repeatedly asked you to explain your edits and you have repeatedly refused. I will ask you again, but this time, I will be more specific:

• Why was the number of total killed changed from 776,360 to 178,698, and from 1,545,822–1,648,582 to 367,283-615,282?
• Why did you change the material sourced to Wainstock 1999? Do your changes reflect the source accurately?
• Why did you remove several paragraphs of content sourced to the Associated Press story from 1999, "U.S. Allowed Korean Massacre In 1950"?
• Why did you remove the image caption citing the policy on strafing civilian refugees?
• Why did you remove the reference to Gregory Henderson, Blum's book Killing Hope : US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
• Why did you replace several reliable sources, such as CNN with less reliable sources, such as a paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank, and add figures from the less reliable source?

Could you please defend these edits? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I am on it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you can't explain your edits, then you should self-revert until the time comes that you can. You can't edit war your edits into an article. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for time to compose my response. You are too eager to edit war, and I'm trying to calm you down now that you have worked yourself into a frenzy of personal attacks and hounding. Why not check back in a half hour?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Why was the number of total killed changed from 776,360 to 178,698, and from 1,545,822–1,648,582 to 367,283-615,282?"

  The "total" was changed to "total killed" (and the number corrected in accordance with that alteration) because, otherwise, chumps might mistake it for the "total killed", even though the numbers wouldn't add up (as it was counting all casualties). I've now broken down the figures into "dead" and "wounded". I did this with the aid of my calculator.

• "Why did you change the material sourced to Wainstock 1999? Do your changes reflect the source accurately?"

  I changed "During this era, at the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver" to "During this era, at the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver". I believe this does reflect the source accurately, because Student7's addition of the word "correctly" came after the fact and was apparently based on OR (see his edit summary).

• Why did you remove several paragraphs of content sourced to the Associated Press story from 1999, "U.S. Allowed Korean Massacre In 1950"?

  I didn't. I removed one sentence, which stated the number of political prisoners in South Korea "at the time of the North Korean invasion" without offering any comparable numbers for North Korea. Since there was already extensive discussion of atrocities, combining these numbers with "the North decided to invade" appears to offer a rationale for the invasion. It may violate WP:SYNTH, unless the source actually says "at the time of the invasion".

• Why did you remove the image caption citing the policy on strafing civilian refugees?

  Because showing a US government document, a primary source, under "war crimes" is original research. We shouldn't publish descriptions of policies and then declare them to be criminal; we are supposed to find reliable sources that label them criminal.

  No, it is not original research in any way, shape, or form.. The document, which can be seen here, File:Shootingkoreancivilians.jpg, is fully cited and sourced widely in the secondary literature as the "Policy on Strafing Civilian Refugees". As I've said before, this is clear evidence that you are editing in bad faith. It does not and cannot meet any known criteria for "original research". Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why did you remove the reference to Gregory Henderson, Blum's book Killing Hope : US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

  There was no reference to Henderson, only to Blum's book (which quotes him). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission reference was moved, not removed. Here is the issue: Henderson claims that up to 100,000 civilians were killed by the South Korean government in total. The truth commission estimated 100,000 to 200,000 total killings--which was written as "hundreds of thousands". Several different times in the article, POV-pushing editors repeated these numbers, without doing anything comparable for North Korea. However, the Bodo League Massacre--the largest South Korean massacre of them all--already had a section devoted to it. And in that section, a foreign language source (that may not pass verification) is used to justify a far larger estimate of 1.2 million (presumably killed) in that massacre alone! Repeating these numbers over and over leads to double counting--kind of like how you looked at the word "total" and assumed that it meant "killed". I added another academic source stating that 100,000 South Koreans died in "political disturbances, guerrilla warfare, and border clashes". The article text reads as follows: "The true purpose of the anti–communist Bodo League, abetted by the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), was the régime's execution of some 10,000 to 100,000 "enemies of the state" whom they dumped in trenches, mines, and the sea, before and after the 25 June 1950 North Korean invasion. Contemporary calculations report some 100,000 to 1,200,000." Note that I didn't remove the incredibly high estimate, nor the weasel words about the USAMGIK--and that it sure is amazing estimates can range from 10,000 to over 1,000,000!

• Why did you replace several reliable sources, such as CNN with less reliable sources, such as a paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think tank, and add figures from the less reliable source?

  The academic study cited is reliable, but I did not remove the CNN source (as is implied by the word "replace"). The low estimate of 900,000 and the high esimate of over 3 million encompass CNN's 2 million.

  On the contrary, you did not cite any reliable academic study. The source you refer to, "Famine in North Korea: Causes and Cures", is a self-published working paper authored by a think tank. Working papers are discouraged on Misplaced Pages, rarely meet the reliable source criteria, and do not in any way shape or form supersede the CNN content you removed unless there is good reason. Working papers are unpublished analyses that are not subject to peer review, while CNN is considered a reliable secondary source subject to editorial review. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Any more questions?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lots of questions, because you have failed to answer every single one of them. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Now then: Why did you attempt to remove the following sources: David Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin; Douglas J. Macdonald, "Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War"; John Lewis Gaddis, We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History; Sergei N. Goncharov, John W. Lewis and Xue Litai, Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao and the Korean War; William Stueck, The Korean War: An International History; John Merrill, Korea: The Peninsular Origins of the War; Marcus Noland, Sherman Robinson and Tao Wang, "Famine in North Korea: Causes and Cures"; Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism; BBC, "Tales of starvation and death in North Korea"; USN&WR, "Gulag Nation"; and so on?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A revert to a previous version that restores material is not an "attempt" to remove sources, and your false accusation indicates that you are editing in bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

One final point: I tread carefully when I edit, and prefer to make changes slowly. That's why I started by adding "total dead", and then added "total wounded". That's why I removed a repeated claim, but not the claim itself. That's why I replaced "the US government assumed, correctly, that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow" with "in this case, the assumption proved correct"--before ultimately deciding to remove the commentary altogether. You can be cynical and pretend that I created the phrase "in this case the assumption proved correct" out of thin air--rather than as a more neutral way to summarize what the text already said--but as long as you insist on playing these word games, I will be unable to take you very seriously. What we should be discussing is: Are there any reliable academic sources that claim 1.2 million people were killed in the Bodo massacre? And: Should that claim be removed? And: Does the cited source even say that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No what we should be discussing is your utter failure to defend a single edit you've made. In every response, you've either ignored the question, made excuses, misinterpreted policy to push a POV, or just made stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• Top-importance Korea-related articles
• Korean military history task force articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• B-Class Korean military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2012)
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors