Talk:Korean War

Bias - especially in regard to photos

This article is written very much from a Western perspective. Numerous facets of the article are concerning, but for now I will just mention one: of the 35 photographs in the article, 34 are from Western sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you spot a Chinese or Korean source with photos, by all means inform us. The lack of available information from their side has been an intense frustration of many of this page's editors. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a fair complaint, but there really aren't many photos of North Korean/Chinese forces. I just created a new montage for the lead (see below) and couldn't find any good photos of North Korean or Chinese forces; what images we have are mostly destroyed equipment and captured soldiers, neither of which are much better in terms of bias (i.e., plenty of photos of UN equipment/soldiers in combat, only photos of neutralized NK/C equipment/soldiers). Parsecboy (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would upload more photos if it wasn't for the stupid URAA... Jim101 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can probably cite fair use for a couple images from North Korea/China, given that they're not replaceable with free use content, and there's unlikely any market for them. We can't use more than two or three in this article, so maybe you could pick a couple of the most valuable images in terms of content (like NK/Chinese troops in action, marching down a road, tanks/artillery, or things along those lines) and upload them with a fair use claim. I can help set up the fair use documentation on the image pages if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Iconic, eh? This definitely counts, although it is also a popular photo in Western press, so it may cause some lawsuit concerns. This photo may be overplaying the human wave stereotype, but its psychological impact is undeniable. This photo signifies the high point in Chinese intervention. This photo signifies PLAAF in Korea. This photo signifies the Korean War's proximity to China. This entire photo gallery demonstrates the fact that Korean War is a total war in China, so take your pick. Finally, before people start complaining that too many dead/captured Chinese got plastered around the article, These are some poor chaps from US 2nd Infantry Division while those are some poor lads from the British 29th Infantry Brigade. I also uploaded other photos in some of my Korean War articles (Ch'ongch'on River, Chosin, Maryang san, etc) if you care to browse them. If you want more, let me know. Jim101 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Korean War Not Over, really

Despite the fighting that ceased in 1953, the Korean War is still going on. The Choenan and Yeongpang incidents would be directly related to this! A treaty that is signed and recognized by all parties is the formal and OFFICAL end to the war! And, as the smart guys that we are, apparently, we have accepted that recognition when looking at many wars. GameGuy95 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I too find it very disturbing that the war is listed as "over" particularly when there are active hostilities on a daily basis, perhaps not open combat, but rounds are exchanged. An armistice is simply an end to open combat, not an end to hostilities the article should reflect this. List of border incidents involving North Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.200.253 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

New montage

Hey all, for what it's worth, I've created a new montage here - it's based on the current montage but with a couple photos swapped out and much higher resolution. Feel free to use it or not. The images in the body will need to be tweaked to avoid repeating the two new photos in the montage, if you decide to use it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Parsecboy. I finally got around to trying it out in the article, so we'll see what people think. --Dianna (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

M-46 vs M-26

Korean civilians pass an M-46 tank

The caption describes the tank depicted in the photo as an M-46 but the up-loader refers to it as an M26. I believe it's an M46 given the absence of the skirts but but for the sake of consistency, both the up-loader's caption and the caption as noted in the article, should be uniform. Any thoughts?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The lack of side skirts isn't important - there are plenty of images of M26s without them (see here and here). The actual NARA description is "With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl tiredly trudges by a stalled M-26 tank, at Haengju, Korea." Given that the children are obscuring about a third of the tank, including most of the turret, it's going to be impossible to differentiate between the two very similar tanks. The M46 was, afterall, basically an improved M26. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

True. So we can't say for sure if its either, or. Are you okay with the caption the way it is given the uncertainty?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should use the NARA description, which labels it an M26, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Since we can't definitively prove it's either tank, we have to go with the NARA caption. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll make the change. Thanks for your input.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

War Crime section

This section needs to be renamed to something akin to 'War Crimes and Civillian casualites' or some sort of reordering is needed to seperate war crimes from collateral damage and civillian losses as a result of combat. The Yongsan bombing and Hangang Bridge bombing articles, which are linked in the war crime section, mention nothing of them being war crimes, although yes they resulted in high civillian casualties as a result. They do not belong in a section entitled war crimes, there appearance in a section entitled as such appears to violate the OR guidelines and being promoting information outside of the NPOV guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)