Talk:Korean War

Collapsible lists

Hi.

Just wanted to say that it'd be better if the collapsible medical and other support lists would be non-collapsible and expanded by default, as, otherwise, content is simply missed by the viewer at first glance and it would be better for visibility.

Consistency of findings of National Defense Corps incident

As a neutral lay-reader:

The "National Defense Corps Incident" page says that "...and tens of millions of won was misappropriated to President Rhee Syngman's political fund." with a valid reference: [국민방위군 사건 (in Korean). National Archives of Korea. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2010.]

Yet on topic this page, under section "Starvation" it says Rhee Sygman was not involved. This is inconsistent or misleading. I suggest the quote above plus reference be added to the end of the relevant paragraph in this section.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

code name x in Korean war

code name x in Korean war 182.224.89.144 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)