Talk:Korean War
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. |
Article policies
|
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, 12Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | Korean War was a Warfare 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Collapsible lists
[edit]Hi.
Just wanted to say that it'd be better if the collapsible medical and other support lists would be non-collapsible and expanded by default, as, otherwise, content is simply missed by the viewer at first glance and it would be better for visibility.
Consistency of findings of National Defense Corps incident
[edit]As a neutral lay-reader:
The "National Defense Corps Incident" page says that "...and tens of millions of won was misappropriated to President Rhee Syngman's political fund." with a valid reference: [국민방위군 사건 (in Korean). National Archives of Korea. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2010.]
Yet on topic this page, under section "Starvation" it says Rhee Sygman was not involved. This is inconsistent or misleading. I suggest the quote above plus reference be added to the end of the relevant paragraph in this section.
There is NO details of casualties
[edit]You removed the details of casualties, such as how many American soldiers were killed, how many Chinese soldiers were killed. The numbers may NOT be 100% correct. But after you removed those details, that makes this page very low standard. It is like you even do not know you should provided those data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyresearcher20233 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- The details of casualties are in the article. See this discussion and consensus reached there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Are you the writer of the article? It is the worst article in Wikipedia. This article is about a war, and gives no information casualties.
- You said "he details of casualties are in the article. See this discussion...", can you write an article as formally as others do?
- And the so called "discussion" is a mess. Weblink2090 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- According to German histories of the war the number of North Korean dead is around 500,000 and Chinese around 600,000 with the South suffering over 400,000 dead and the UN some 50,000 mostly Americans. The 600,000 number comes from a book, I can't remember which, on the war where a Chinese General had admitted to his Hungarian counterpart, a man who had spent the war in North Korea and China, that "The PLA did't do as well as we thought it would. We actually lost many more soldiers than we claimed to have. it was more like 600,000 killed fighting against the Imperialists." I hope that helps. FaladaHart78 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- German are not the only historians, and which german historians? Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- That really helps faladahart78! thanks! i needed it for my 10 paragraph essay. i used my own words and i needed to know about how many were killed! thanks! 2605:59C8:625A:F510:5655:5665:8DD4:5A3A (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Unsourced claims that an anonymous Wikipeida user read from a book written by a random German man that heard from a random Hungarian man that allegedly heard from a random Chinese man are about as useful as used toilet paper. In particular the estimate for Chinese is accurately known to be close to 150k. Biosaurt (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You said, "In particular the estimate for Chinese is accurately known to be close to 150k."
- (1) The Manchuria conquered the "powerful" Chinese Ming Empire, and ruled China for 300 years till 1911. The population rate was 1:100, 1 million Manchurian and 100 million Chinese.
- (2) In 1900, The Eight-Nation Alliance took Beijing, and lost only 60 soldiers.
- Battle of Peking (1900) , Wikipedia
- Eight-Nation Alliance, Wikipedia
- (3) In 1937, Japan invaded China, Japan took the Chinese capital and lost only 2000 soldiers.
- Battle of Nanking, Wikipedia
- Nanjing Massacre, Wikipedia Imahere5679 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is better, but you still need to make it formally,this article is one of the worst one in wiki, you just need to make a formal section of the details of casualties. Imahere5679 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Infobox images are misaligned
[edit]As title, the main infobox's images are now misaligned, leading to staggered and large borders around each image. I think someone added an image (yet again from a Western source). See this thread on this talk page; there are too many photos from purely SK/Western sources already, we need more Chinese/North Korean photos represented in the article. I'd advocate for undoing the swapped image altogether; the added image doesn't add much understanding, it's now misaligned, and we still lack Chinese/NK perspective. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEADIMAGE,
It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
Per WP:COLLAGE,Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way.
Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE,Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.
As there has been some recent discussion about the suitability and placement of images used for this collage, I would observe that the placement of these images togeather is not necessary and that the collage here is primarily decorative in function and intent. In searches for images related to the Korean War, this image of a girl carrying a small child appears recurrently. That would tend to evidence that this particular image is closely associated with the Korean War (perhaps even iconic of the war) and is well suited to being a lead image. I have therefore BOLDly added this as the lead image. I would observe that the nationality of the tank in the background and its model are largely immaterial to the impact of the image and are unnecessary in respect to the caption. I could not find a link to the location. A link for a nearby location or corresponding event might be useful context. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- I do not agree that the images are primarily decorative; I think there is fundamental value to having images that quickly show both significant and representative moments (a picture being a thousand words etc etc).
- I also don't agree with the girl as the main image. For image placement, to my understanding, we have more leeway on Wikipedia than just whichever image is most commonly associated with something. We can make editorial decisions about what adequately conveys meaning about topics. The picture is striking but not necessarily representative of the conflict, which was large and diverse. A collage I think is suitable for a war of this magnitude. As a weaker supporting argument, similar collages exist for other similar wars (although I'm aware that precedence isn't everything). 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The image of the girl is great photojournalism but does not show the extent of population displacement. If there are more representative images, they would be an improvement. The C-119 in the collage is not essential either. Among the additional images suggested in the past, these two are relevant and not too grainy. Senorangel (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be ok if we displayed the first of the two images for now. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. The lead image should
carry a representative image ...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
A good lead image is therefore one that is closely associated with the topic in the collective consciousness. This is quite different from trying to represent different aspects of the subject through a collection of pictures. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us we should not try to write the article in the infobox. This applies equally to text and images. Mutiple images stacked togeather are smaller and more difficult to see, while extensive captioning bloats the infobox when WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that less is better. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- Ok I find parts of your arguments more convincing now, but to understand your reasoning better, how do you feel about the collage in the infobox in World War II? Would you rather it not be there? I know WWII and the Korean War are not comparable in scale, but just wondering how you feel about these kinds of collages in general. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The short answer is that I would rather it not be there - particularly as it stands. These smaller images loose definition and too many images crammed into a small space become visual noise and a distraction rather than a benefit. It is another attempt at a photo essay. We might better think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. A strong criterion for an emblematic image is one which is sufficiently recognisable that it could probably exist without a caption to explain why it is there. Only two come close to this - the A bomb and the flag over the Reichstag. But I don't think either of these are the most emblematic. The Stalingrad image could be any pile of rubble at almost any time and the battleships line-astern are not particularly WW2. The planes in the picture are not clearly recognisable as Stukas. The inverted gull-wing is not clear in the photo and they were not the only planes of the era with fixed landing gear. The German cross on the nearest plane is the clearest indication of what they are. The Matildas in the desert are emblematic - of the north African campaign. In general, a montage as a lead image is like a camel - a horse designed by committee. The WW I infobox is a clear fail IMO too - the tank on its own would be better - though not necessarily the best. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok that all makes sense to me, and it seems to me to align with the interpretation of the guidelines you present, although a few points I need to think on some more. In fact, I just realized that your comment articulates what I subconsciously disliked about the WWII and WWI infoboxes. Still, I'm conflicted; I think collages are useful and that human attention spans can handle more pictures than just one. Granted, six or seven, maybe too many. When I run into these collages, I click and scroll through these pictures and usually find them really helpful in understanding things. I may need to do some reading about when these guidelines were enacted before I'd ok removing the collage here; also I can imagine people will push back against this, possibly for the same reason I present. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The short answer is that I would rather it not be there - particularly as it stands. These smaller images loose definition and too many images crammed into a small space become visual noise and a distraction rather than a benefit. It is another attempt at a photo essay. We might better think of a representative image as one which is emblematic. A strong criterion for an emblematic image is one which is sufficiently recognisable that it could probably exist without a caption to explain why it is there. Only two come close to this - the A bomb and the flag over the Reichstag. But I don't think either of these are the most emblematic. The Stalingrad image could be any pile of rubble at almost any time and the battleships line-astern are not particularly WW2. The planes in the picture are not clearly recognisable as Stukas. The inverted gull-wing is not clear in the photo and they were not the only planes of the era with fixed landing gear. The German cross on the nearest plane is the clearest indication of what they are. The Matildas in the desert are emblematic - of the north African campaign. In general, a montage as a lead image is like a camel - a horse designed by committee. The WW I infobox is a clear fail IMO too - the tank on its own would be better - though not necessarily the best. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am not saying the picture of the girl is bad. But it is not the best either. To me it seems slightly staged. The girl stopped in front of the stalled tank in order to turn toward the camera. In the collage, the only two images most people would recognize as Korean are probably Incheon landing and Namdaemun gate. Senorangel (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok I find parts of your arguments more convincing now, but to understand your reasoning better, how do you feel about the collage in the infobox in World War II? Would you rather it not be there? I know WWII and the Korean War are not comparable in scale, but just wondering how you feel about these kinds of collages in general. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of the lead image is not to be a photo essay of the article subject. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. The lead image should
Edit request
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the discussion thread immediately above this, replace the image of the plane dropping bombs with this one: Commons:File:Tank unit of the Korean People's Army enters the streets of Seoul while being welcomed by the Korean people, 1950.jpg. The size of the pic could optionally be recropped to fit well with the other pics in the collage, but less important. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- A grainy propaganda photo? No. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Wikipedia is not a propaganda spreader. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand the disagreement. For others reading, I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I'm toobigtokale from elsewhere on this page; I've written pretty blisteringly about pretty much every major relevant country to this war. I just believe we need to get more Chinese/NK photos into the article as per the above talk thread, but I was too hasty. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you editting from an IP? Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- User talk:104.232.119.107#My activities on an IP 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you're trying to wean yourself off WP using an IP is unlikely to help, also if you use an IP other Users can see where you're editting from. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate the feedback, I've already considered those factors. If you'd like to discuss my IP please do so on my IP talk page; let's reserve this page for Korean War article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you're trying to wean yourself off WP using an IP is unlikely to help, also if you use an IP other Users can see where you're editting from. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- User talk:104.232.119.107#My activities on an IP 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you editting from an IP? Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand the disagreement. For others reading, I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I'm toobigtokale from elsewhere on this page; I've written pretty blisteringly about pretty much every major relevant country to this war. I just believe we need to get more Chinese/NK photos into the article as per the above talk thread, but I was too hasty. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Union of soviet socialist republics "unofficial"belligerent
[edit]can someone provide a reference to this? "Soviet Union (unofficial)" UnsungHistory (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Wrong image description
[edit]The third image is described as "The Seoul city gate Namdaemun, damaged", as the image comes from the archive with that description. However, it is not the Namdeamun gate that is on the picture but the Janganmun, the northern gate of Suwon, that was destroyed in the . Namdaemun did not get destroyed like that during the war. See National Museum Of Korean Contemporary History (much.go.kr) for some additional colored pictures of both the Namdaemun and Janganmun from different angles. Seovin (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oops this is possibly my mistake; I added the photo and caption back when I had an account. Someone please feel free to change it and cite the claim 211.36.142.143 (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- This claim does contradict the source I got the photo from though.
I feel like I've seen other photos of Namdaemun with this damage, but I'm not certain. Possibly merits more investigation/sourcing211.36.142.143 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC) - Nvm, I'm looking at more footage/video from around this time, and Namdaemun doesn't have that kind of damage. It's probably Janganmun. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Pic caption correction
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above talk thread, image caption for the pic of the broken gate (second row, right) is likely incorrect, due to incorrect info in the source for the pic.
Replace the caption with: A gate of Hwaseong Fortress in Suwon, heavily damaged during the war.[1] 211.43.120.242 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "War, the Everyday, and Hope". National Museum of Korean Contemporary History. Retrieved July 11, 2024.
Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Korean conflict was said to have started in 1948, according to the article. Therefore, I would like for the upper text to be changed from 1945 to 1948. 171.244.185.182 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No it does not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Formatting a column about losses
[edit]Hello dear anonymous people, I have not yet mastered editing and would like to get some advice before making edits. Long ago or not very long ago, the template about losses included the flags and losses of each country. I think it might be worth returning it? In my opinion, such a column, purely aesthetically, will look better for the article. What do you think ? Hikka1999 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Korean War/Archive 12#Chinese casualties and the consensus to remove. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per the above, we do not really have an authoritative number. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Um, so it’s better not to indicate any? And what is the logic if the article indicates the losses of the parties, but for some reason they cannot be indicated in the template? Hikka1999 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because a template cant deal with complexities as it is a Summay (of the lede), of a summary (the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Um, so it’s better not to indicate any? And what is the logic if the article indicates the losses of the parties, but for some reason they cannot be indicated in the template? Hikka1999 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Typo in Belligerents list
[edit]In the Belligerents list, there's a typo right under "United Nations" that just says "Template:FlagU". Could someone with semi-protected editing privileges fix this so that it correctly lists the United States? Thanks. Rabbitish (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class China-related articles
- Top-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class United States History articles
- High-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Korea-related articles
- Top-importance Korea-related articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- B-Class Cold War articles
- High-importance Cold War articles
- Cold War task force 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 International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- B-Class United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
- High-importance Pritzker Military Library-related 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 African military history articles
- African military history 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 Dutch military history articles
- Dutch 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 German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- B-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class Korean military history articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Nordic military history articles
- Nordic military history task force articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- B-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Wikipedia controversial topics