Talk:Korean War/Archive 12

Prostitution claim in Aftermath section

Aftermath has the following sentence:

In the 1960s, prostitution and related services represented 25 percent of South Korean GNP. Cited link

The reference leads to an article that mentions a 2002 study by Katharine Moon of Wellesley College but does not provide a link to the study. Judging from Katharine Moon's CV, the article is referring to a 2002 Korean translation of Moon's 1997 Sex Among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations. Regardless, a quick google search about the original claim provides two sources from Google Books with similar but different figures: Katharine Moon's 1997 Sex Among Allies and a 2019 Routledge publication (the book pages may not be visible when clicking these links, and can sometimes be fixed by scrolling down then scrolling back up). Katharine Moon's book says: "One EUSA intelligence officer estimated that the troops contributed 25% of South Korea's GNP in the 1960s," and provides a citation but the bibliography is not visible on Google Books. The Routledge book says: "The presence of U.S. troops contributed 25% of South Korea's GNP, playing an especially important role during the 1960s, and prostitution and related businesses supported over half of the U.S. camptowns' economy," and does not provide a source.

The claim that prostitution and related services represented 25 percent of South Korean GNP in the 1960s is not supported by other sources and seems unimportant to include in this article anyway. It seems that Katharine Moon's original claim was that total spending by US troops contributed 25% of South Korea's GNP in the 1960s, not prostitution specifically. The sentence should probably be removed. 24.250.204.177 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed--I dropped the passage. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

25% would be a huge amount of prostitution!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Updating, improving ‘Civilian deaths and massacres’

I plan to edit that section to 1) correct the impression the commission investigations are ongoing (they wrapped up in 2010, but the section now reads, “Since 2005 … (the commission) has investigated”); 2) transpose paragraphs to a more logical order, 3) expand on the commission’s findings to make clear there was a split between a liberal commission and a successor conservative commission, 4) point out the commission did not investigate No Gun Ri, and 5) describe the outcome of the No Gun Ri investigations. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In making the above changes, I inadvertently deleted the section's final paragraph, dealing with the pre-war Jeju island uprising and bloodbath. Isaidnoway then spotted and fixed orphaned citations left over from that paragraph. Realizing what I'd done, I looked to restore the graf, but then discovered the Jeju story is well covered earlier in the article's section 2.4. So, the missing graf, which also included a significant factual error, should have been deleted anyway. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Date of Soviet declaration of war on Japan

A recent edit has said the USSR declared war on Japan on 9 August, being 3 months and one day after VE Day. Most sources I've seen say 8 August. According to this source, p 24 Molotov read Japanese Ambassador Sato the declaration Moscow at 5pm on 8 August and said Soviet forces would attack at midnight. However, he meant midnight according to the local time in the Far East, not Moscow time. Soviet forces attacked within an hour. Does this matter for this article? No. The important thing is that the USSR attacked in accordance with an agreement with the other Allies. It is also important to place this in context, noting that it happened in the closing days of the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have altered the date to 8 August. I have also made other changes to the section. For some reason, this article and Division of Korea said that Rusk and Bonesteel proposed the 38th Parallel but didn't say proposed it as what. Hence, I have changed the wording. Please feel free to improve the text, but please don't revert it to something ungrammatical or illogical.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead mention fighting prior to 25 June 1950?

The present body text provides referenced information about fighting in Korea in the two years prior to the big invasion of 25 June 1950. We also had a few words about this in the lead for several years…

Until 15 January this year, when Mechanical Keyboarder removed the information from the lead, in an edit flagged as minor. I recently put the info back, and the same person took it out again. In edit notes, Mechanical Keyboarder has called this information “redundant” “not significant for the lead” “unessential”, but has not questioned the correctness of the information.

As the Wikipedia style manual mentions in WP:MOSLEAD: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” This is important because many readers don’t read the page from start to finish, even if we’d like them to. “The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article.”

If the lead does not mention fighting prior to 25 June 1950, busy people making a short Wikipedia visit are likely to get the impression that the Korean peninsula was completely at peace till then. In which case, they go away misled. Is that what we want? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I support mentioning it. I think it is essential to provide the context.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely support the inclusion.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Korea war" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Korea war. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Draft:Korea war until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

About the statement of the first troop PLA that China sent to North Korea, the citation is currently absent but required. Z.penguin (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What first reference?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Please mention that the war has no end date in the right description box, as it ended with a stalemate making the war officially stalled. It is misleading to falsify the terms of the treaty and confuse the general public. These distinctions are invaluable to students. Thank you. Betteruser (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Most sources give 1950-53 as the dates of the war. The conflict that predated 1950 and is ongoing is covered by Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Betteruser this has been discussed at length previously. The war ended with the signing of the Armistice on 27 July 1953.Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

An armistice which South Korea intentionally did not sign in the first place, leaving serious legal constraints as to the validity of the treaty's "conclusion". Betteruser (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So? Most modern wars don't end cleanly. Mztourist (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

British involvement

There ought to be more about the involvement of British soldiers, and other nations. When I was a schoolboy two of my teachers had bullet-wounds from the war, at least one from close-quarter fighting. From reading I believe the British were major active participants, but that is not the impression the article gives. 92.24.181.49 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

80% of the military force that went to aid South Korea was from the USA. As you can see from the infobox, there were 327,000 Americans and only 14,000 British troops.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Timeline is misleading.

Problematic sentence:

"In December 1945, Korea was administered by a US-Soviet Union Joint Commission, as agreed at the Moscow Conference, with the aim of granting independence after a five-year trusteeship.[82][83] The idea was not popular among Koreans and riots broke out.[67] To contain them, the USAMGIK banned strikes on 8 December 1945 and outlawed the PRK Revolutionary Government and the PRK People's Committees on 12 December 1945.[84] Following further large-scale civilian unrest,[85] the USAMGIK declared martial law."

In this sentence, it is implied that protests broke out due to the Conference itself, and that consequently to that, the United States banned strikes on 8th of December and then banned the PRK on 12th of December. This is misleading, because the conference started the 16th of December (and had its final document written down on the 27th of December: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade19.asp). Hence, actions taken by the US's administration before the conference took place, cannot be a consequence of the agreement reached at the conference (which happened later). The sentence should either be rephrased, OR at least the date of the conference start-day (16th of December) should be added. This is a simple temporal issue; again, the US actions cannot be a consequence of the Conference, when they happened BEFORE the Conference took place.

And in fact, in the US military history source quoted in the sentence itself (nbr. 67: https://history.army.mil/books/pd-c-02.htm) we find the sentence:

"When news of the trusteeship proposal with its "up to five years" clause reached South Korea, many of the Koreans reacted violently. Riots, which had to be quelled by U.S. troops, broke out on 29 December. In contrast, the South Korean Communists, presumably acting on instructions from their Russian mentors, announced their support of the trusteeship proposals on 3 January."

Hence, the United States could have neither banned strikes on 8th of December nor banned the PRK on the 12th of December as a consequence of the riots which broke out following the Moscow Conference, which according to the source provided, happened on the 29th of December.

OneRandomContributor (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

American POW Statistics

This is a very nitpicky correction but I believe the American POW number on this page is inaccurate. The source given seems to only refer to the records that the study looked at, not all POWs from the conflict. With this in mind, I have found some sources that give other numbers that seem to match closely to each other. In the book The Korean War by Max Hastings, he gives a number of 7,190 US soldiers taken prisoner during the conflict with 2,730 dying after being captured. Unfortunately, I only have a digital copy so I do not have the page number but it is on the last or second to last page of the 15th Chapter. Closely matching this statistic is the number provided by a US government document from 1955 titled POW: The Fight Continues After the Battle which states that 4,428 American soldiers survived communist imprisonment during the conflict (Intro p. VI). I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I cannot edit the page directly but I feel confident that the given number is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adampveldman (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Strength

Is the listed strength for the USA (over one million) a combined figure? Prins van Oranje (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath April 2021

User:웬디러비 has deleted large amounts of material from the Aftermath section claiming that these are unrelated to the war. I disagree, the postwar political status and economies of North and South Korea is perfectly relevant for brief discussion in this section.Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Some nice reader feedback

Hi everyone, FYI a friend who knows I edit Wikipedia, and who served in Korea as a physician, emailed me with the following comments: "This long, long entry has opened my eyes as to how complex our world is, how trapped people are by their circumstances, and how futile war is (people doing the best they can in impossible situations). I spent 14 months in Korea w US. Army. Without the passage of the last 60 years, the communications technology that now exists, and the realignments that have occurred, there's no way I could have even dreamt this story decades ago. Thanks for doing the work you do. This is the longest Wikipedia entry I have seen. I couldn't stop reading until I got to the end of the article." Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Change "Korea was annexed by Japan" to "Japan annexed Korea". Removes passive voice. 2601:285:C180:1780:444:388E:BDE3:4D25 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Living Concrete (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Recreation

Is it appropriate that the creation of "comfort stations" (brothels) by the the South Korean government for UN troops be termed "recreation"? If the formation of "comfort stations" by the Japanese were categorised as "recreation" would that be appropriate? I am not sure in either case but there seems to be a categorization conflict; recreation vs ???.

Unsure they are quite the same, as (if my memory serves) the Japanese conscripted Korean women, did the UN forces?Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Should the lead mention fighting prior to 25 June 1950? (from Archive 12)

The present body text provides referenced information about fighting in Korea in the two years prior to the big invasion of 25 June 1950. We also had a few words about this in the lead for several years…

Until 15 January this year, when Mechanical Keyboarder removed the information from the lead, in an edit flagged as minor. I recently put the info back, and the same person took it out again. In edit notes, Mechanical Keyboarder has called this information “redundant” “not significant for the lead” “unessential”, but has not questioned the correctness of the information.

As the Wikipedia style manual mentions in WP:MOSLEAD: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” This is important because many readers don’t read the page from start to finish, even if we’d like them to. “The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article.”

If the lead does not mention fighting prior to 25 June 1950, busy people making a short Wikipedia visit are likely to get the impression that the Korean peninsula was completely at peace till then. In which case, they go away misled. Is that what we want? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I support mentioning it. I think it is essential to provide the context.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely support the inclusion.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Mechanical Keyboarder has yet again removed this info from the lead, in an edit flagged as minor! Didn't you read this discussion, Mechanical? 10:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey?

"A survey of Koreans in the summer of 1946 found that 77% preferred socialism or communism while only 14% favored capitalism."

https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/us-destruction-of-north-korea-must-not-be-forgotten/

Should it be added in? The source is from Asia Times and source seems solid. https://www.routledge.com/Politics-in-North-and-South-Korea-Political-Development-Economy-and-Foreign/Ku-Lee-Woo/p/book/9781138647503 It appears that not many favored capitalism and the Americans entered the war for their own self interests to "liberate" from communism. However it could just be a biased survey. Nvtuil (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No, without knowing who conducted the "survey" and the survey conditions it is just a potentially biased claim. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• The literacy rate in Korea in 1945 was 22 percent. I doubt that the average Korean had any concept of capitalism, communism, or socialism -- or any other ism other than survivalism. Smallchief (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for political discussion, but the view that the average Korean of 1945 couldn't have valid political concepts because they weren't literate is not only utterly offensive but also demonstrably incorrect.BobBadg (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, its a perfectly valid consideration. Prove that the literacy rate is incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the literacy rate (obviously); I'm disputing the notion that literacy is required before one can have political concepts. BobBadg (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Even literate people are unable to differentiate between socialism and communism and today we have people calling the democratically elected governments of capitalist countries "socialist". Going back to the original question and my comment above, we have no way of knowing how socialism, communism and capitalism were explained to, or understood by, those surveyed, but we can safely say that illiterate Koreans wouldn't have read Das Kapital. The survey indicates that only 9% had no opinion which seems suspect and indicates to me that the survey presented a very appealing depiction of socialism/communism. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The survey was conducted by USAMGIK.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Source? Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

[1]--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not active on this article currently, and take no stand on whether the 1946 survey should be incorporated. But this USAMGIK poll has been known and cited repeatedly by scholars over the decades. In that politically volatile period, the South Korean peasant, literate or not, knew his self-interest – land. The "socialist" NK regime had just launched its huge land redistribution program. Leftist peasant organizations spread through the south. The survey’s results were, I suspect, unsurprising to its designers. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the survey would be better mentioned at Division of Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the promise of land is compelling to landless or near-landless farmers and that's what the communists of Korea offered. It worked very well in Vietnam also for the Vietcong. Our explanations of the joys of capitalism could never overcome the basic attraction of land for Vietnamese farmers. So, I think in the mind of the Korean (and Vietnamese) famers, the terms "socialism" and "communism connoted land. And to those who call my views "offensive," I would guess that the average literate American of the 21st century couldn't define the "isms" in any meaningful way. "Capitalism good, socialism bad" is the usual level of discourse. Smallchief (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Canada's involvment

If wikipedia is to be believed, Canada had 26 000 soldiers involved in this conflict. But this article doesn't mention this... is there a reason? It seems a big of an oversight... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observer31 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has them in the infobox in the combat support section, and links to an entire article on their involvement. This article concentrates on the big picture, going into the details of each nations involvement may be beyond its scope. (Hohum ^@) 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Netherlands troop count

I saw the dutch troop counts on this page are 812, which I believe is way on the low side. From what I've been able to find on this page: https://www.mpva.go.kr/english/contents.do?key=1313 there were 5,322 dutch soldiers involved in the korean war. Does the number on this site only include land troops maybe? Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.162.207 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox lists the peak strength, not the total number of troops who served throughout the entire war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Yeo-Sun uprising

The article has this unsourced claim:

> The Yeosu–Suncheon rebellion overlapped with it, as several thousand army defectors waving red flags massacred right-leaning families.

The Yeo-Sun incident page does provide a source for this, which in turn cites US military documents (which, incidentally, would probably not be the best source for how the insurgents were selecting targets), but even that source makes it clear that the ""rightist" families and christian youth groups" were targeted alongside "police and pro-government vigilantes" -- omitting that context just makes it read like this, which was surely not the intent. I've included the latter part of the source's claim in the other article and tagged it as dubious, but this article is protected.

Does it make sense to include this inflammatory, incomplete claim here at all? If so, including the rest of the claim seems pretty uncontroversial, but would it also make sense to replace the later This resulted in another brutal suppression by the government and between 2,976 and 3,392 deaths with The government's brutal suppression ended after the massacre of between 2,976 and 3,392 left-leaning families, just to be consistent with the language we're using? Thanks! 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:8C0F:F362:146C:557A (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"North Korean atrocities"?

Anticipating this would controversial, I decided to create a new section here. The current version of the article is very problematic. First of all, of the most heinous atrocities of the war, such as the massacre of 200,000 Koreans in the South without trial in the first months of the war(https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-korea-bloodbath-probe-ends-us-escapes-much-blame-2010jul10-story.html), the devastation wrought by bombings (including of dams), and the use of biological weapons, all were committed by the South Korean and American side. Nothing attributable to North Korea (currently - more on that soon) belongs in the same category.

[I wanted to suggest that the above correction could be made in cooperation with forming a more accurate and organized aftermath section. This section could have a focus on the human and environmental losses of the war, the latter of which is not discussed in the separate Wikipedia article, Aftermath of the Korean War. Other information on the destruction of the dams and American involvement can be found here too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-war-crime-north-korea-wont-forget/2015/03/20/fb525694-ce80-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69 story.html. Thanks BrendanMagee (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ]

According to the current version of the article, "In occupied areas, KPA political officers purged South Korean society of its intelligentsia by executing every educated person—whether it be academically, governmentally, religiously—who might lead resistance against the North; the purges continued during the KPA retreat.[33] When the KPA retreated north in September 1950, they abducted tens of thousands of South Korean men. The reasons are not clear, but the intention might have been to acquire skilled professionals to the North."

A few points: the first citation references "Statistics of Democide" by Rudolph Rummel in 1997. First of all, Rummel notes that his estimates of "democide" by North Korea are just "guesses." He admits that they are largely based on defectors (whose unreliability is notorious - Iraqi defectors helped peddle lies about weapons of mass destruction, to give one example). His "one overall estimate of the minimum number of South Koreans that were murdered" comes from South Korean propaganda. Also, the massacre of 200,000 South Koreans without trial mentioned above was falsely blamed on North Korea until recently (https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-korea-owns-up-to-brutal-past-20081115-gdt2yw.html) - and given that the book is from 1997, this raises questions. All of the specific massacres he cites have since been demonstrated to be committed by South Korea, if not also the US: The Taejon massacre he cites has now been demonstrated to be the responsibility of the South if not also the US (https://apjjf.org/-Bruce-Cumings/2826/article.html). The Wonju massacre also cited there has also recently been demonstrated to be the responsibility of the South (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/asia/03korea.html), as has the Suwon Massacre (see Cumings, The Korean War, p. 175-6).

Additionally, even in the book cited, there is nothing that says North Korea "execut[ed] every educated person—whether it be academically, governmentally, religiously—who might lead resistance against the North." It does claim that North Korea "systematically massacred former South Korean government officials, anti-communists, and others deemed hostile to the communists; and such killing was intensified as North Koreans retreated from the South," but does not give a reference for this claim (and as already mentioned, the three specific massacres referred to have all since been shown to have been committed by South Korea).

Finally, with regard "tens of thousands" of abductees, a fact-finding commission in South Korea led by the prime minister reported that there were actually 55 wartime abductees, not tens of thousands (https://books.google.ca/books?id=DT4yAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22wartime+abductees%22+%22korean+war%22&source=bl&ots=tGOD8oGIG5&sig=ACfU3U0MScKbsyyiGx6xXxJHfHEuafOXNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1kIC5zd_iAhUmiFQKHZ5ZB1I4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22wartime%20abductees%22%20%22korean%20war%22&f=false) - and even this I find questionable, since it comes from South Korea and does not provide a reason for the alleged abduction.

Based on experiences on the French version of Wikipedia, I wanted to post here first before editing the article, as I do not want any changes to be immediately reverted. For the reasons I have given, I removed references to "North Korean atrocities," as all the evidence given so far is questionable. Incogreader 10/6/2019

improper cites

The various Chinese references from the Wayback Machine don't state their source, copyright, etc. Also, verification and NPOV examination is virtually impossible on these.50.111.8.86 (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which reference numbers you have in mind?

For example, the first archived Chinese source ended up being clearly appropriate — it states the source, and there’s no NPOV issue as it is clearly cited as a Chinese estimate of Chinese casualties (which differs from the U.S. estimate of Chinese characters, as shown in the text).

Which specific references did you have a concern about? JArthur1984 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote “casualties” in my response above, but I actually mean KIA JArthur1984 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I am from Colombia and here in my country it is said that between 4750−5100 troops were sent NicolásF2 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Columbia is listed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrendanMagee (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Carter McCrae, Bque.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

Change "After that, the Korean Empire fall and Korea was directly ruled by Japan from 1910 to 1945." to "After that, the Korean Empire fell and Korea was directly ruled by Japan from 1910 to 1945." 2601:401:C680:1456:F430:D6AE:E2E2:4FE (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 03:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The final line of the summary reads "Additionally, several million North Koreans are estimated to have fled North Korea over the course of the war." Should this read several million North Koreans fled to South Korea? Mrperson21 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is my dad's name NOT on this list?

My dad's name was Donald Vanderheyden from Stockton, IL. He fought in the Korean War 1952-1953. He won a purple heart. Why is his name not listed here? I am so disappointed. He died in 2016 at the age of 87. Please add his name to this list. How can you leave someone off this list that earned a purple heart in the Korean War? His daughter, kleebrown40@gmail.com 2600:1700:CCC0:52D0:2DDE:4179:87C2:C414 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

From doing a WP:GOOGLE search, it appears that coverage of Vanderheyden is limited to obituaries, which we have to be cautious about using as sources. Even if the obituaries are reliable, it appears as though Vanderheyden lacks notability to warrant mentioning in the article as a serviceman in the war. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not clear what list is being referred to here. There isn't (and shouldn't be) a list of everyone who served in the Korean War as that would run into millions of people. Winning the Purple Heart isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Under the Names section, the name used by Mainland China, especially the Chinese characters, is incomplete. Please change "抗" to "抗美援朝战争". 125.59.175.220 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

100,000 british soldiers fought in Korea. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/photos-british-soldiers-korea-forgotten-war/ 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:EDAB:55FE:6DC8:1791 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Peak strength is given in the infobox and the overall number is given in a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

In the Belligerents box, for the North Korean side under supported by, East Germany is listed with a wrong thumbnail flag. The flag shown is the flag of the Federal Republic of Germany aka West Germany, not the one of the German Democratic Republic aka East Germany. Spec10 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The template "Flagcountry|East Germany|1949|" uses the flag at the time. As stated in East Germany: "The initial flag of East Germany adopted in 1949 was identical to that of West Germany. In 1959, the East German government issued a new version of the flag bearing the national emblem, serving to distinguish East from West." --Mvqr (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo in intro

Hello

South Korea was supported by the United Nations. The US was one of the nations that participated under the UN. 84.70.153.18 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a typo, more a question of weight. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese casualties

七战功成, please self-revert and discuss why you want to remove the sourced U.S. estimate. You also need to justify why you're removing the most recent Chinese estimate of 197,653. I've told you multiple times to stop edit warring and to start a discussion here. GreenCows (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I already told you the reason a couple of times, you didn't see it? The number of 183108 and 197653 are the number of "martyrs" recongized by the Chinese government, the "martrys" are not equal to fatalities of Chinese army, it includes all kinds of non-combatants (such as workers who supported the front and people who visited the army) who don't belong to Chinese army, and dead Chinese soldier after the armstice until the withdrawl of Chinese army from North Korea in 1958. The total fatalities of Chinese army during the war is 148977. This is clearly illustrated in the quotes and articles. I don't think you cannot see them. 七战功成 (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

七战功成, can you please self-revert as you have no consensus for any of your changes. I will not revert again today as that would put me beyond three reverts. Please also explain the removal of 400,000? Stating that it's "unfair" because the Chinese estimate of UN casualties is not currently listed is not a valid justification for removing it. Neither is your claim that it's inaccurate. You can make a case here for adding the Chinese estimate of UN casualties if you want but don't remove the U.S. estimate. Regarding the 180,000 figure, it's not actually clear from quotes that this includes non-military personal and this is your own interpretation. Other sources disagree with your interpretation. CNN and Al-Jazeera both refer to 180,000+ as China's own estimate for military deaths during the war. Al-Jazeera also mentions the estimate of 400,000. China Daily, which is run by the CCP, says "180,000 Chinese soldiers were killed while they fought with North Korea against US aggression". GreenCows (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not my own interpretation. It states quite clearly that this is the total losses of Chinese army during the war. You can look at other parts of that article, especially the next sentence: 但这一数字未包括失踪人员中的死亡者，也未包括支前民工。

徐焰还介绍说，上世纪90年代，抗美援朝战争纪念馆汇集全国各省市民政部门的统计，得出的烈士总数为171669人。此后，各地民政部门又陆续增报了一些抗美援朝烈士，至今纪念馆的统计已增长至183108人。"(However, this figure does not include the dead among the missings, nor does it include the workers who supported the front.

Xu Yan also said that in the 1990s, the Memorial Hall of the War of Resistance against the United States and Aid Korea collected statistics from civil affairs departments of all provinces and cities across the country, and the total number of martyrs was 171669. Since then, civil affairs departments around the country have successively reported a number of martyrs. So far, the number of memorial halls has increased to 183108.)

This means that both number 171,669 and 183,108 are numbers of "martyrs", which include all non-combatants died during the war. This is not equal to losses of Chinese army. 七战功成 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20151222152043/http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2010-06-27/1050598182.html This is the quote: 根据卫生勤务部门准确的阵亡统计和医院接收伤病员统计，志愿军在抗美援朝战争中的总损失数是：战斗和事故亡114084人；负伤383218人(因包含两次以上负伤而存在重复统计)；患病后送入院治疗455199人(因包含多次住院同样存在重复统计)；战场失踪25621人。此外，战争期间根据解放军后方卫生部门的统计，医院中的负伤人员有21679人不治身亡，还有13214人病死。(According to the accurate death statistics of the health service department and the statistics of the patients and wounded received by the hospital, the total number of losses of the volunteer army in the Resisting America and Assisting Korea War is: 114,084 died in combat and accidents; 383,218 were injured (double counting exists due to multiple injuries); 455,199 were sent to hospital for treatment after illness (double counting also exists due to multiple hospitalizations); 25,621 were missing in action. In addition, according to the statistics of the rear health department of the People's Liberation Army during the war, 21,679 died of injuires and 13,214 died of illness in the hospital) The total number of fatalities of Chinese army during the war is 148977 七战功成 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Then I have no issue changing the lower range, not the total figure. This is only a Chinese claim, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the official figure, which is the most reliable one. Official statistics of own side's losses are generally regarded as "fact". If this is not fact, neither were the numbers of the US, South Korea and other countries. 七战功成 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No this is the official Chinese figures, others disagree, when we have this we put in everyone's claim. You are not going to get a consensus to just put China's side. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Disagree what? You guys don't think this is the official statistics? All countries of UN side only have their own claims of losses included, why you guys don't have any problem with that? 七战功成 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to add North Korean, Chinese, or other estimates of US or South Korean casualties, citing reliable sources. I think it would improve the article. Just as we do not treat Chinese official calculations as authoritative, we are under no obligation to treat US official calculations as authoritative.

But this is a matter of addition on the US/South Korean side of the infobox, not substraction from the North Korean and China side of the infobox. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will add that. 七战功成 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with adding this calculation, with the source cited, as a lower range. Let us make sure we are not deleting other estimates, however. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not? There is already an official number, which actually haven't changed for a long time, and should be regarded as reliable one. There is not supposed to be any other estimation, which would only cause misunderstanding. 七战功成 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because to avoid an issue with the WP:UNDUE guideline, articles must reflect reliable sources in accordance with their due weight. For example, there are a great many sources reciting the estimate of 180,000. This is clearly an appropriate estimate to include even though the point you make about the martyrs is an interesting analytical matter. Additionally, this is an area where we can qualify sources as "USA estimate," "Chinese calculation," etc. so that the reader can ultimately form their own judgments. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the "interesting analytical matter" mean. This is my own interpretation. As long as you search most chinese articles about the 183108 and 197653 number, almost all of them will mention and emphasize that these are the number of "martyrs", which include all non-combatants and military personnel who died after the armstice until the withdrawl of Chinese army from North Korea in 1958. This is clearly not equal to the losses of Chinese army during the war.

There are not any estimation of UN side's losses from Chinese and North Korean. I don't think that meets the criteria. If you don't have problem with that, you are not supposed to have problems with not this. 七战功成 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That is why we have a range, we do not accept blindly one sides estimate (which is what you are asking us to do), if you are unwilling to accept the suggested compromise (put in a range to relelct all claims) you are not going to get consensus, and this is wasting our time. We have agreed to include your figure, but not as authoritative. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So why you don't have any problem with losses of UN side? There are only their claims there. Is this not unfair? You are using double standard. 七战功成 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping 197,000 as the Chinese estimate. More recent articles from Chinese state sources all use this as the official figure. A 2020 China Daily article states that "197,653 Chinese soldiers were killed in the war." CGTN in 2020 states that "A total of 2.9 million CPV soldiers entered the battlefield, 197,653 of whom sacrificed their lives in the War". Global Times in 2020 states: "More than 29 million CPV soldiers participated in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, with 197,653 soldiers confirmed as martyrs by China's Civil Affairs Ministry." The 183,000 figure is out of date and mentioned older Chinese state sources. More recent Chinese state sources make it clear that the official figure of soldiers killed in the war is 197,000. GreenCows (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggested that you read Chinese articles. I have to say many media are really not serious enough on this matter. Both 183108 and 197653 are numbers of "martyrs", not total losses of Chinese army during the war. The source of the 197653 in the current version of the article have said quite clearly: 在安葬仪式上，记者获悉，现已确认的抗美援朝烈士共有１９７６５３名。确认的抗美援朝烈士名录包括抗美援朝战争期间牺牲和失踪的志愿军官兵、支前民兵民工、支前工作人员，以及停战后至志愿军回国前帮助朝鲜民主主义共和国生产建设牺牲和因伤复发牺牲的人员。 [At the burial ceremony, the reporter was informed that there are now 197,653 confirmed martyrs of the War to Resist America and Aid Korea. The list of confirmed martyrs includes the officers and soldiers of the volunteer army who died and went missing during the War to Resist America and Aid Korea, the militia and militia workers who supported the front, the staff who supported the front, as well as those who died after the armistice until the return of the volunteer army to help the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in production and construction and those who died due to recurrence of injuries.] 七战功成 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL, the official Chinese estimate is that more US solders were killed wounded or captured, than actually served? Seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

七战功成, please self-revert as you have no WP:CONSENSUS to change the Chinese figures. This is an ongoing discussion. Please do not edit war. You have already been warned by myself and Slatersteven about this. You already broke the WP:3RR rule. Do not rush the discussion and force your prefered changes. You also changed the highest North Korean estimate which hasn't been discussed here. GreenCows (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I replied to every comment you guys made here. You guys did not respond before I made that edit. Several hours have passed since then. I could only assume that you had agreed with my change. The high end of North Korean estimate comes from Britannica, but it actually shows that the 406,000 is the total number of "dead and missings", not just "dead". That's why I changed it. 七战功成 (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that because nobody responded to you within two hours that you can assume we all now suddenly agree with your changes despite the latest comments by involved editors clearly showing that to be not true. You have made five reverts in 24 hours on this article, more than the allowed three so please self revert, stop edit warring and get consensus. GreenCows (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you didn't agree, why didn't you respond before? You guys replied quite fast previously, and suddenly all of you stop replying for a couple of hours. Of course most people would think you at least acquieisced. You then suddenly jump out to say "I don't agree" without providing any useful argument after I made that edit, I provided enough sources and explanations, but you didn't, and simply opposed this without enough valid reasons and threaten others from time to time. This is really unconstructive. There is no way to get consensus if you go on like this. 七战功成 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Most editors absolutely wouldn't assume that we "acquiesced" just because we hadn't responded in two hours. People are busy and can't necessarily respond to every comment within minutes and other editors might also wish to comment. Wikipedia discussions involving multiple editors can take days or even weeks before there is some sort of consensus and you clearly didn't have consensus. I told you to self revert multiple times as you have violated the three revert. rule. Also please read WP:BLUDGEON as Slatersteven also suggested. GreenCows (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be busy. But your previous performance was really not convincing. I also said this multiple times, everyone of you responded to me so quickly and suddenly all stop replying for quite a while. But then you immediately came out to tried to stop after I made that edit. It could easily make many people feel that you are not really busy, you just don’t have enough good sources and reasons to oppose this but you just don’t want to give up. I am willing to participate in the discussion to get consensus. The premise is that both sides are sincere enough. I may be a little overhasty before, but I also don’t think you did a good job here. 七战功成 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL. You actually think there were only around 330,000 U.S soldier served in Korea throughtout the war? You cannot even distinguish the peak number from the total number? 七战功成 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And you are aware that would have been a 20% casualty rate. No western democracy could hide that number of dead (whatever that number is) or to maintain that rate of loss. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So what? You think 20% casualty rate is incredible and unbearable for the U.S army? That's casualty rate, not mortarlity and heavy injury rate. Why it cannot surpass the losses in Vietnam? Korean war was much more intense than Vietnam war. In fact, I am not saying that number is accurate, that's the claim from China and North Korea. I add it because there need to be both side's opinions and claims on wiki, not juse one side. This is one of the main point of argument here previously, you don't even know what you are doing here? 七战功成 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do, as I agreed to let you add it. I am pointing out that it is so ridiculously high a number that someone will almost certainly remove it as not sourced to an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you think the U.S army are so fragile that they are unable to bear this casualty rate? That's quite ridiculous. Even the number is not right, it's defintely not as ridiculous as the 400,000+ dead of China and North Korea (Especially North Korea, I wonder if those people really know the size of North Korean army) 七战功成 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@七战功成: as an uninvolved editor, I suggest you self-revert your last edit before it's too late. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They have been blocked for 72 hours for violating the three revert rule and edit warring so they can't self revert and I have already made three reverts today so I'm not going to make another revert today. GreenCows (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the page to the version from before the dispute began until any consensus can be reached. GreenCows (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I made an appeal. The administrator didn’t agree to unblock my account but agreed to convert it into a one-week partial block (I cannot edit this article for a week but I can join in the discussion here). I would like to continue the discussion. You can rejoin in it now. 七战功成 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• The block of 七战功成 has been partially reverted to allow them to continue this discussion. We are starting with a new slate. Let us focus on the matter at hand. Discuss the issue and refrain from discussing past conduct by any party. While all parties are probably aware of this now, consensus cannot be assumed by silence. Let's keep this civil please. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion is a bit difficult to follow as are the edits made to the article being discussed. It comes down to adding a "new" Chinese source for Chinese casualties that has a lower estimate than that previously cited from a Chinese source. The argument made is that the "martyrs" figure is overly inclusive, including deaths after the armistice (until 1958). The figure also includes "militia" which are generally considered combatants? The distinction sought to be made is "combat casualties" - which would be within the war zone and not just the front or "battlefield" as referred to in the source being added. The war zone is effectively, all of greater Korea or the Korean peninsula broadly defined. There is also the matter of comparison with US/UN sources. On the last matter, we don't exclude figures from one source in preference to another in such a case as this. On the matter more generally, there is nuance to these figures. The edits are mainly being made to a footnote within a drop-down within the infobox. The infobox is not the place for nuance. There is a section in the article for casualties. The material should be addressed within the body of the article and then reported as a summary in the infobox. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't write the article in the infobox but this is precisely what is happening here, both overall and in respect to this particular issue. None of the intricate detail presently in the infobox belongs there. It belongs in the body of the article or in subordinate articles summarised in the body and linked as "main articles" from the body of this article. In short, lets address this particular issue of casualties in the body of the article in the first instance. Then and only then do we summarise casualties in the infobox in the broadest of terms - ie only overall casualties. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe there are still some misunderstandings or puzzling points here. Allow me to clarify and emphasize it once again.

  I don't think this is hard to figure out. As I previously emphasized, the military losses during the war definitely should not include those non-combatants, especially those who don't belong to the army, and the military personnels who died after the armstice. I think everyone will agree wit h this. Both 183,108 and 197,653 are number of "martyrs", which are clearly not equal to the fatalities of Chinese army. This has been indicated clearly in the articles. Actually, Chinese government have't revised the statistics of military casualties, they only changed the number of "martyrs".

  The section about casualities is realtively comprehensive, but some information in the infobox is not accurate enough. Apart from the Chinese fatalities, the high end estimate of North Korean fatalities and the total dead and missings of China and North Korea are not accurate, as I mentioned above. The infobox is not a place for detailed contents, but it's also supposed to be rigorous to avoid any misinformation. 七战功成 (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, this comes down to a case of comparing like with like. Of the four Chinese sources, three are reporting the same number of "combat casualties" but each differs in the total casualties (attributed to subsequent deaths). The fourth (most recent source) only reports total deaths. The US figure in the infobox reports combat casualties, which were about two-thirds of the total casualties. The totals in the infobox appear to be an aggregate of the individual figures listed. It assumes that all individual entries listed are reporting the same thing - ie combat casualties. Because there is an inherent assumption, this is not a case of a routine calculation per WP:CALC and therefore falls to WP:OR - especially because it does not acknowledge the inherent assumption.

It occurs to me that there really should be good quality sources that address the issue of total casualties on both sides and a break-down of these by type and country. We should be relying on these sources and not coming up with what appears to be our own aggregate numbers. I reiterate that there is too much intricate detail being put into the infobox and there is also too much nuance in the reporting for the figures to be given as some sort of "absolute" value made in a Wiki voice. This really should be dealt with in the body of the article (or such) where detail should be reported and the nuance can be dealt with more effectively.

To the immediate issue, the Chinese deaths should be reported as 114,000 (the combat casualties), since this "appears" to be a comparable reporting basis given that this is what the US figures are reporting. However, this does not address the overall issues identified, which are much less than ideal. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157, the US figure in the infobox includes non combat casualties and missing. The article currently says: "According to the data from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. suffered 33,686 battle deaths, along with 2,830 non-battle deaths". The article also says that there were "17,730 other deaths during the Korean War" but this is misleading and should be reworded. The Washington Post source states: "17,730--occurred elsewhere, often half a world away from Korea, in places ranging from the United States to Germany. The actual number of Americans killed in the Korean War theater of operations is 36,516, the Pentagon acknowledged" and "The error was blamed on an anonymous government clerk who in the 1950s mistakenly added all noncombat deaths worldwide to the total".

I think 197,000 should be used as the Chinese estimate for Chinese deaths. This can include in a note, details of a breakdown such as: "114,084 servicemen were killed in military action or accidents, and 25,621 soldiers had gone missing. The other about 70,000 casualties died from wounds, illness and other causes". 197,000 is the official figure used by all the most recent Chinese state sources for Chinese military deaths. China Daily: "197,653 Chinese soldiers were killed in the war.", CGTN: "A total of 2.9 million CPV soldiers entered the battlefield, 197,653 of whom sacrificed their lives in the War"., and Global Times: "197,653 soldiers confirmed as martyrs by China's Civil Affairs Ministry.". 183,000 is an out of date estimate from 2010 as already explained in the Casualties section. A description of this most recent figure also needs to be added to the body. The only source that 七战功成 cited that explicitly says 148,977 is a 2010 source that also notes that the "figure does not include those who died among the missing, nor did it include former migrant workers". 七战功成, do you have a source to support your claim that the "Chinese government have't revised the statistics of military casualties, they only changed the number of "martyrs"." I also don’t see why militia or others who supported the front wouldn't be included. Any nuance and detailed breakdown of what is included in the 197,000 figure can be added to the Casualties section or in a note next to the figure in the infobox. Regarding the North Korean highest estimate, you state that Britannica says that the 406,000 is an estimate for total number of dead and missing North Korean soldiers. This is still a valid figure to use and keep and can be clarified.GreenCows (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

[edit conflict] OK, I acknowledge my error in that the infobox reports the sum of 33,686 and 2,830 and my error was that this was much less than 54,246. You have made some edits to the body to clarify this. In the body (actually a footnote), the 70,000 Chinese deaths are described as follows: The other about 70,000 casualties died from wounds, illness and other causes [see present ref # 47]. The devil is in the detail. The origin of the 197,000 is essentially from a primary source which news sources have parroted. The key lies in defining "martyr", which is not done in the article. It might be as subtle as the distinction between "gave their life in the war" v "gave their life to the war". My substantive observations remain. We should be reporting figures from good quality secondary sources. Relying on what are essentially primary sources is WP:OR. There is too much intricate detail and too much nuance for these things to be reported in the infobox. My solution would be to delete all of the intricate detail from the infobox and tag the totals as being uncited. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that the article should be complete without an infobox. This article clearly fails in that respect. The solution to this "dispute" lies in improving the body of the article and not trying to write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Or just leave out the figures totally? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven, which figures are you specifically referring to? I certainly agree that high quality secondary sources would help clarify the Chinese figures as the various sources contain contradictions. It seems that the 197,000 figure is the Chinese equivalent to the US number of 36,000. Total deaths from the war including non-combat, however it's not clear what would be equivalent to the US battle deaths for the Chinese estimate of Chinese battle deaths since the 2010 Chinese sources state that while there are 114,000 battle deaths listed, they list in addition deaths that could be considered battle deaths if formulated the same was as the US figures, including 25,621 MIA and 21,679 died of wounds. The 2020 sources with the more updated 197,000 figures don't include a breakdown. Good secondary sourcing would be ideal. GreenCows (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

All of them, as it is clear there are major issues with any of them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

GreenCows“Total deaths from the war including non-combat”, it only includes military personnels who died of non-combat causes, but definitely won’t include deaths of non-combatants who don’t belong to the army and military personnel’s who died after the war ended. These are two completely different concepts. It’s really puzzling that you seems unable to distinguish them 七战功成 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

GreenCows That’s why I suggested you reading Chinese article. Many English article about this subject are not as official and serious as articles of Chinese official media. The current source of the 197,653 is an article from one of the Chinese official media. It states quite clearly that this is the total number of “martyrs”, it include all kinds of non-combatants who don’t belong to Chinese army, such as migrant workers who supported the front, and Chinese soldier who died after the armstice until 1958. There is a quote and translation shown up there and I post it here to you before. It seems that you never read it. The definition of “martyrs” is very inclusive. As long as the Chinese government think that these people contributed to the war, or helping North Korea after the armstice, they would be recognized as “martyrs”, no matter what their identities were. These are clearly not equal to the fatalities of Chinese army during the war. Of course these people should not be include in the losses of Chinese army during the war. 197,653 is clearly not equivalent to 36,574, the latter is the total deaths of the U.S army during the war, which should correspond to 148,977.

As for the 406,000, this is the total number of “dead and missing”, not just “dead”, you definitely should not plus missing once again (This is how 526,000 came out). And I noticed that it’s you who changed the total number of dead and missing of China and North Korea. You changed it into “398,000–926,000 dead and 145,000+ missing”, which is a completely inaccurate calculation and severe exaggeration. The “398,000–926,000” already includes the missing, and the high end also includes double counting of missing and captured of North Korea, as I mentioned above. This is the one that should be corrected first. 七战功成 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have read everything you have written and the Chinese language sources, and I'm fully able to distinguish but I disagree with your interpretation. With the exception of counting some deaths post armistice (surely there's a source that lists how many died from 1954 to 1958), the 197,000 figure is clearly the closest Chinese equivalent of of US figure as the official war tally. Why would migrant workers supporting the frontline during the war be excluded? I'm starting to agree with Slatersteven that maybe all these figures should be excluded for the moment as there are major issues. I also don't see the benefit of bringing up my edit from years ago. In any case, the total aggregate numbers should probably be removed altogether as Cinderella157 suggested. The lower end estimate is currently an incorrect calculation aswell based on 183,000 that isn't in the infobox anymore. GreenCows (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

GreenCows Even if you have really read those things but you clearly have not been able to tell the difference. The number of casualties listed in that infobox are defintely military losses, why should those migrant workers be included in? They were civilians, not military personnels and didn't even belong to the Chinese army. They were responsible for transporting logistic materials to Chinese army on the front. You think they joined those battles as combatants? The source of the 197,653 in the current version clearly indicated that this is the total number of "martyrs", including but defintely not limited to the deaths of army during the war. This is no doubt not equivalent to the 36,000 of the U.S, which is the military fatalities during the war. The illustrative quote and its translation are also right there, I even post it here to you, you seems still unable to understand it. And this is the official statement posted by official media, it should be regarded as the most accurate and virtually "facts". You should never changed the wording and meaning arbitarily without new and clear evidence. This difference is quite clear and easy to understand, and the official medias also said it clearly, I don't know why you just cannot get it. Maybe you just don't want to admit your mistakes. Besides, why should not bring up your edits years ago here? You made a wrong edit and this should be pointed out. 七战功成 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The 2014 reference supporting 197,000 reads: The list of confirmed martyrs includes the officers and soldiers of the volunteer army who died and went missing during the War to Resist America and Aid Korea, the militia and militia workers [emphasis added] who supported the front, the staff who supported the front, as well as those who died after the armistice. Militia workers may be the equivalent of a labour corps. Regardless, they are described as militia and are therefore military in nature. The 2010 source in the body supporting 183,000 states: 114,084 servicemen were killed in military action or accidents, and 25,621 soldiers had gone missing. The other about 70,000 casualties died from wounds, illness and other causes. The 2010 source you would add accounts for 35,000 over and above the 114,000 battle casualties but is silent on who or what the remaining 35,000 were that were referred to in the other 2010 report. Nor is there any reference to the nature of the additional 15,000 added between 2010 and 2014. There is no figure given for deaths after the armistice nor any reference to "migrant workers", and no definition of what qualifies to be considered a "martyr". There is no reason to give particular weight to any of the sources presented save that more recent figures are usually given some additional weight. Given the sources presently available, IMO the body of the article should probably present the information in a way similar to how I have done here, with the net result being a range. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157 About the figure of 183,108, I want to clarify something. Here is the source: http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2010-06-27/1050598182.html This is the critical quote: 根据卫生勤务部门准确的阵亡统计和医院接收伤病员统计，志愿军在抗美援朝战争中的总损失数是：战斗和事故亡114084人；负伤383218人(因包含两次以上负伤而存在重复统计)；患病后送入院治疗455199人(因包含多次住院同样存在重复统计)；战场失踪25621人。此外，战争期间根据解放军后方卫生部门的统计，医院中的负伤人员有21679人不治身亡，还有13214人病死。但这一数字未包括失踪人员中的死亡者，也未包括支前民工。

徐焰还介绍说，上世纪90年代，抗美援朝战争纪念馆汇集全国各省市民政部门的统计，得出的烈士总数为171669人。此后，各地民政部门又陆续增报了一些抗美援朝烈士，至今纪念馆的统计已增长至183108人。(According to the accurate death statistics of the health service department and the statistics of the patients and wounded received by the hospital, the total number of losses of the volunteer army in the Resisting America and Assisting Korea War is: 114,084 died in combat and accidents; 383,218 were injured (double counting exists due to multiple injuries); 455,199 were sent to hospital for treatment after illness (double counting also exists due to multiple hospitalizations); 25,621 were missing in action. In addition, according to the statistics of the rear health department of the People's Liberation Army during the war, 21,679 died of injuires and 13,214 died of illness in the hospital)"(However, this figure does not include the dead among the missings, nor does it include the workers who supported the front.

Xu Yan also said that in the 1990s, the Memorial Hall of the War of Resistance against the United States and Aid Korea collected statistics from civil affairs departments of all provinces and cities across the country, and the total number of martyrs was 171,669. Since then, civil affairs departments around the country have successively reported a number of martyrs. So far, the number of memorial halls has increased to 183,108.）

I have to say the title and some content contradict other contents, especially the one above. You can see that it indicates the 183,108 is the number of "martyrs". The 148,977 (114,084 + 21,679 + 13,214) came from <<抗美援朝战争卫生工作总结: 卫生勤务>> (https://books.google.com/books/about/%E6%8A%97%E7%BE%8E%E6%8F%B4%E6%9C%9D%E6%88%98%E4%BA%89%E5%8D%AB%E7%94%9F%E5%B7%A5%E4%BD%9C%E6%80%BB%E7%BB%93.html?id=9_xDzQEACAAJ) This is generally regarded as the most accurate and official statistics about the losses of Chinese army during the war.

As for the "migrant workers", I think it's just my mistakes about the translation, it should be "workers who supported the front". They voluntarily transported logistic materials to the Chinese army on the front, and many of them died due to heavy bombing. 七战功成 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

七战功成, I have read and understood the above, several times before. While this source refers to "workers". The other 2010 government source refers to "militia workers". That they are being described as militia makes them inherently part of the military (eg a labour corps) even though they would not be considered combat effective. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella I have to disagree with this. All the Chinese sources I read refer to them as “支前民工”, which mean they were workers and civilians, and don’t belong to Chinese army. There were also a large number of workers who did the same thing for PVA during the Chinese civil war, but they were never a part of the PVA. 七战功成 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Given that there appears to be a consensus here to do so, I have removed the military casualties from the infobox. I wasn't certain if this also applied to the civilian casualties, so I have left this for the moment. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you to remove the figure of military losses there. This may be the most ideal solution to the issue now. I think the civilian casualties could be kept, since it's almost not possible to count the number of dead civilians precisely, and most sources I read agree with the figure around 2-3 million. 七战功成 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: I don't think its a good choice to removed the military casualties of all belligerents from the infobox simply due to the dispute of Chinese casualties, there are many ways to mark the Chinese estimate without controversies, such as marking them as "148,977-197,653 deaths" and using a note to make further explain. BlackShadowG (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That has been suggested, and rejected. MAybe we need an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  As Slatersteven says. If something cannot be summarised simply it doesn't belong in an infobox. At present, there is no consensus for what figures should go there. There is a consensus to remove them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Korean War is still on

In fact, the Korean War is still going on! 188.113.95.213 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Neither North Korea or South Korea ever signed peace treaty and both clames each others country as their own. So, The Korean War is still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.95.213 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The article states this, "However, no peace treaty was ever signed, and the two Koreas are technically still at war, engaged in a frozen conflict." 331dot (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

I should correct this, please change from Rhee Syng-man to Syngman Rhee for infobox. 112.204.206.165 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

India didn't take sides during the war, all it did was provide medical support to soldiers of the two sides. 103.30.64.194 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please be specific about what change you are asking for. India is not listed as one of the beligerants on either side. RudolfRed (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The Korean War

the Korean war describes the war between North Korea and South Korea which began on 25 June, 1950.After when the Northern Korean People's Army invaded South Korea in a coordinated general attack at several strategic points along the 38th parallel, the line dividing communist North Korea from the non-communist Republic ... 117.193.11.57 (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your point is? Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

I request a note be made in the POW section of this Article. The source on the fate of Chinese POWs is both inflammatory and sounds like Chinese Propaganda straight from the politburo. Its source is one Chinese website that isn't even on the web anymore. I believe adding something along the lines of "Chinese sources claim," would do much to mitigate this effect. Wolfgang1492 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

The reporting of military casualties in the infobox was extensively discussed in the now archived discussion, Talk:Korean War/Archive 12#Chinese casualties, the suggestion there (not by myself) was to delete the military casualties from the infobox because of multiple issue that were identified during the discussion. There is too much nuance to the figures, which an infobox is unable to capture. This is a matter best left to prose in the appropriate section of the article. Despite being directed to the previous discussion, Norprobr has disputed the consensus there an has readded the military casualties to the infobox.

Ping previous participants: GreenCows, 七战功成, Slatersteven, JArthur1984 and BlackShadowG. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Greencows was a sock puppet and was blocked.

I am not an editor who likes infoboxes generally. I find the lack of room for nuance and the shorthand approach in infoboxes creates contention. I like addressing these matters in the article body.

I don’t have a strong opinion at this juncture but I am weakly in favor not having casualties in info boxes JArthur1984 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Given how often we have to have ranges, same here, Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we need a RfC? BlackShadowG (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn’t notice the message before. I agree with other people here that it’ better not to include casualties in the info box. 七战功成 11:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

BlackShadowG, your objection in the previous discussion was made about two weeks after the removal and garnered no support. While consensus can change, I think it is reasonable to say that the previous consensus has been confirmed for now. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

World War II was the largest and most violent military conflict in human history. Official casualty sources estimate battle deaths at nearly 15 million military personnel and civilian deaths at over 38 million.

This post says the Korean War had more civilian casualties than WW2. That is not true. Official casualty sources estimate battle deaths at nearly 15 military personnel and over 38 million civilian deaths. How could this be so wrong. 2601:1C0:5300:7700:D14C:9EA7:4551:F4F1 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The article says the percentage of civilian casualties in Korea was higher than in World War II or the Vietnam War. The percentage, not the raw number.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This line through me off as well, but because it feels like a mis-comparison. Korea conflict is confined to such a small land area. I bet if I picked such a specific area of WWII, like East Poland or Tokyo, the civilian casualties would be worse than the Korea War. Last pixel (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And that would be a valid point to make about WW2.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Listing of American Casaulities First?

The Military sub-section of the Casualties section lists American casualties first. Sorry if this seems pedantic, but I feel it's more fitting to list South Korean numbers first. This war is, at its core, the invasion of S. Korea by N. Korea. They were the primary force fending off the initial invasion, were in Wonsan before the US even landed there during the counter-offensive, and were repeatedly targeted by the Chinese for attack over the better-equipped UN lines during the intervention. They also suffered by far more casualties than the US, with 130k listed vs. 30k American deaths.

It might even be best to list S. Korean, then N. Korean casualties, then after that list US, Chinese, and other deaths. Just read the first paragraph of the article - the war is between the N. and the S., supported by the UN and China. It just feels a bit "Amero-centric" to lead with them, and this is coming from a US citizen. Last pixel (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, though from a different perspective. Reading this article with images of American weapons next to a war refugee and American troop numbers front and center, it feels like this was an American war, where USA sent there weapons and chaos ensued. The lacking of Soviet, Chinese and Korean weaponry being showed upfront produces a biased perception for people reading it. 180.150.36.98 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be the same order as the rest of the infox box. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Image

Hey, I uploaded this image to commons that i found pretty symbolic [2], think this or something similar could go in the infobox?

I genuinely like all of the images, just my take (please don't roast me), other than the bottom right image they don't seem to quickly communicate it's something that happened in Korea specifically. Incheon is of course Incheon, but it's a bit hard to discern from the relatively low quality image, as this was created manually by stitching the images together into a collage instead of a template, like in the WWII article infobox. toobigtokale (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, add it in somewhere. I just noticed the Chosin reservoir image is used twice.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, recreated the photomontage using Template:Photomontage too. Previously it was manually stitched together, which can make it harder to swap out images and requires a lot of manual attribution work. toobigtokale (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Hyperlinks "Trygve Lie" and "Dag Hammarskiöld" lead simply to an image of the flag of Israel. 176.72.93.71 (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a result of vandalism. It has been reverted, and will be fixed once the cache expires. Nardog (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't need to nitpick but...

Technically and legally North and South Korea are still at war, the armistice signed in Panmunjom was to cease hostilities between the North and South but did not resolve the declaration of war. I think that parts of the article need to be re-written to indicate that the North and South of Korea are still at war with each other. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. We cover the ongoing conflict in Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Length

The article is indeed too long. Suggestions:

1. If anything is unsourced, delete it altogether, unless it's absolutely crucial for the average reader.
2. For topics that already have their own article, shorten them down to like 1-2 dense paragraphs max (ideally by moving info from here to the main article, if it doesn't already have), only include the most critical details. Currently there's too much detail almost everywhere. Culprits:
   • Background section
   • The bombing of North Korea subsection
   • Aftermath section
   • Various 'Course of the War' sections
3. Consider splitting out sections into articles.
   • Chinese intervention subsection has promise
   • Communist insurgency in South Korea too

I may not take this up, as it's a big project and I do want to finish my own articles and Seoul first. Would happily endlessly praise anyone who is willing to take it or any other fix up. toobigtokale (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Support this outline. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this suggested approach. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedian. I just read the article and found it generally very good. For me not too long but about right. Agree splitting off some parts detail may be worthwhile if you must shorten though. I, and many others I assume, wouldn't follow to many subsidiary articles so don't be to savage cutting please. 110.92.17.208 (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven

Slatersteven continuing with our discussion can you please elaborate the concerns you had with the information I added? I am still not sure which writer you were referring to and what you propose we do with the other writers which you did not refer to Skiperfor (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven, your edit places undue emphasis on the views of one writer (Zhao). Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In what respects? In terms of the length we give to his views? I can slim that down by removing the part about Khruschev and condense the part about Mao although some changes will have to be made. Zhao's analysis is a bit more nuanced that what we have right now. It says Mao did not approve of Kim's plans in advance but it leaves out what Zhao says a little bit later which is that Mao accepted the decision made by Kim and Stalin to unify the Koreas after verifying Kim's plans with Stalin. Also, I should point out, there were more things I changed than merely expounding on Zhao's views. Please take a look at those and feel free to comment. If you or Slatersteven have no objections or otherwise approve, then I will restore. Skiperfor (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am restoring the information as I do not see any objections. Any one who does should bring their disagreements here to discuss first. Skiperfor (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The Korean War was a South Korean victory

Before the war there was a North Korea and a South Korea. North Korea started the war by invading the South, intending to conquer it. Years later the war ended and South Korea still exists. Hence, the Korean War was a South Korean victory. 99.38.19.204 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Not according to RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well it's not a complete victory because North Korea still exists. Rager7 (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is not any either victory or loser in the war.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Victory is measured by whether the original objective was achieved: if it did, it's a victory, otherwise it's not. South Korea was the defender, and its objective is to expel the invading NK, and it did. The objective of North Korea was to conquer SK (or unify Korea in their words), and it failed. So it's a SK victory/NK loss. Conquering NK was a later objective of SK/UNC after the Landing in Inchon, but the original objective was more modest - restore status quo. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You might be right but South Korea have also had their will to invade North Korea for their unification as well. North Korea began their attacks to South Korea in 25th June 1950 but South Korea did not then. Both have longed to unify in spite of their measures and North Korea only did it that day. I agree with you about the original object that North Korea could not achieve but, at the point that both have not unified the peninsula, they are not either a victor or loser.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Except North Korea is considered by many scholars to be the defender, not the aggressor.

And even going by just the preempt to war, the DPRK had been facing multiple attempts by the ROK to provoke conflict with hundreds of border conflicts occurring in the years prior to the 'official' start of the war. GyopoSeraph (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No WP:RS states that North Korea was not an aggressor. Both North and South engaged in provocations before the North Korean invasion in June 1950. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is any of this relevant to who won? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit stating clashes were "mostly initiated by the South," citing DPRK propaganda source

New user GyopoSeraph recently added an unsourced "US and South Korean Map created in 1949, planning an invasion of North Korea" from his public Twitter account, directly linking to a thread in which he publicly stated "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is good."

When this edit was reverted because Twitter/X is not a reliable source, GyopoSeraph began edit warring in additional disputed material stating that border clashes were "mostly initiated by the South," citing a book published by the "Foreign Language Publishing House, Pyongyang, Korea, 1993," which appears to be a North Korean propaganda source.

GyopoSeraph states that this source is acceptable because "the original author of the book that was presented as evidence was from the South Korean ambassador to the UN, Dr. Channing Liem"; however, it remains unclear how much WP:WEIGHT we should give to Liem if his insights have not been reliably published and cannot be corroborated by independent mainstream academic experts. To me, all of the above seems like POV-pushing and WP:NOTHERE behavior that may amount to pushing WP:FRINGE theories or advancing a likely WP:HOAX (in the case of the Twitter map). Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not a WP:RS and its claims cannot be included. GyopoSeraph find a WP:RS if you can, but stop edit-warring this and pushing your WP:POV. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s not a WP:RS. Based on his obituary by NY Times, he started visiting DPRK since the 1970s when ROK still was hostile to DPRK. Not only was the book published by DPRK, but there were no reviews about the book, and there was no citation of it by experts. So there is no evidence to consider it to be a WP:RS. —Happyseeu (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

Chanho1027 (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC) The reason South Korea failed to respond effectively to North Korea's surprise attack at that time was due to the lifting of the heightened alert status on June 23rd and one-third of the troops being on leave.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)