Korean War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
US Army divisions are not clearly labelled as such, as opposed to Korean ones which are always preceded with KPA and Chinese ones which are always preceded PVA. This not only puts the neutrality of the article in question, but is also confusing to the reader. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. This sentence: "The right-wing Representative Democratic Council, led by nationalist Syngman Rhee, opposing...." concerns events between 1946 and 1948, but there is a big gap in the narrative here. There needs to be more explanation (1946-1948) of exactly why the peaceful elections were never held, that is, how the polarization process took place. Gunnermanz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there really was a polarising process. Fundamentally, there was a lack of agreement from the beginning: Koreans did not want a trusteeship, the USSR did not want a hostile neighbour, and the USA did not want a Communist takeover.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears to me that the war crimes section is considerably biased toward the Americans/South Koreans, when considering the statistics of civilians killed and POW's in the war. Considerably more North Korean civilians were killed/wounded and considerably more Chinese and North Koreans were held as POW's. Despite this, the section makes no mention of Chinese/North Korean POW's. The images shown are also uneven in their representation, as several images are shown of dead bodies due to North Korean actions, but no images of equal brutality are shown for atrocities committed by the South Koreans/Americans.
Please do not duplicate the same debate across multiple pages
The war crimes from the Korean War have some staggering figures, like 100,000 for the Bodo massacre, and North Korea executing 500,000 civilians. This should at least be mentioned in the lead.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that belongs there, looks POV to me. The US is guilty of commiting atrocities in South Korea too. Seems like you have something against Koreans. There are other notable battles that have more staggering figures. It wasn't only the Koreans. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright, take out the figures, if you think it creates POV. However, since the article has a war crimes section, the concept of war crimes deserves a mention in the lead. MOS:LEAD says that the lead should summarize the article and any prominent controversies. Well, war crimes are a prominent controversy. BTW I have nothing against Koreans, I just picked an atrocity with large number for each side. Regarding other wars having more staggering figures, the ones listed in this article sound like they pass the threshold for relevance. As such, I propose the sentence for the lead: "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict." This doesn't emphasize one country or side or the other.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
War crimes were not a prominent controversy in the Korean War. It would be considered prominant in World War II, and even that doesn't have it in the lead. "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict" would leave a reader either saying "so?" or "so what?" War crimes are commited in every war. And none of the other wars include it in the lead. Also can we please keep this discussion in one place? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to advocate for the inclusion of war crimes in the lead of several war articles. I cannot raise the issue of Korean War war crimes and solicit views from editors of the Korean War article by using the Vietnam War talk page. I am trying to get more views than just my view and Supersaiyen312's view. We already know that we have opposing views on this war crime issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with advocating that, you should have just clarified that at first. Personally, I support your proposed sentence of "War crimes were committed by both sides of the conflict." being added to World War II, but that's it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but (again) this is not a defining aspect of the war.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Slatersteven. I don't think of war crimes as one of the most critical historical lessons from this war. But I might change my mind if sources were brought that declare war crimes had this level of significance. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Previously the infobox had a listing of countries that supplied "Combat support". This has been changed to "Combat units". In military jargon (US at least), "combat support" is a term of art that describes military police, aviation units, military intelligence, etc. ("Combat service support" units include Finance Corps, Medical Corps, type units.) The term "combat units" is needed because the supporting countries provided combat units, not combat support units. – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)