Talk:Korean War

Archives

Commanders

They've changed again. With no references. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is Tahsin Yacızı? ha was the most important commander in the war. wikipedia is full of jerks i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.249.168 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, an Turkish officer is much more important than all the American and Korean commanders. You know, the commanders of the troops who did most of the fighting.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Tahsin Yazici was one of main commanders of the war. This missing is a big mistake for neutrailty. --94.54.249.168 (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

It seems about every line points to American bias. Every image is of "American firepower", with nothing regarding the other nations involved. None of the paragraphs seem to regard the successes of the Koreans and their allies or the US allies. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Casualty statistics?

I was reading the article about the Battle of Osan and it seems to contradict the casualty statistics in this article.Patriot Missile33 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I changed the Battle of Osan statistics. I don't know how a force of 500 could have 1,500 killed. Seems like someone is inflating the number of US casualties but don't have the time to check the other questionable statistics at the moment . Patriot Missile33 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion versus facts

Back up your claims from reliable sources or cut it out. Example, "[the Korean war] is culturally forgotten." The Korean war is frequently the focus of modern documentaries and TV shows--MASH, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording was a little strong there (obviously the entire culture has not forgotten it) but we do have reliable references for that statement, and the number of documentaries and TV shows on the Korean War is far less than on WWII or Vietnam. Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that as an encyclopedia the wording could be less direct (for example, "the Korean War is widely referred to as 'the Forgotten War'...) but I would defend the inclusion of that term here. Though it took place only five years after the end of WWII it is much less known or understood in American culture. As Cerebellum says it has been much less covered than even single battles of WWII. And I would hardly cite MASH as an example of how it is 'remembered'. MASH was not even about the Korean War, that was just its setting. I doubt most people would even know that MASH took place in the Korean War. In any case, bottom line, this is not a place for us to do our own interpreting but to use other reputable sources. I think there are enough out there to back up the point that the Korean War has been largely forgotten/misunderstood. It's simply a matter of wording your contribution carefully and citing. Straitgate (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Why can I not edit the infobox 89.240.179.50 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are usually stored elsewhere and we just view them on pages like this, if you want to edit the infobox clicking on the small "e" in the upper left hand side will take you to the template and allow you to edit it. - Schrandit (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Using North Korean news as sources

Why are we using the Korean Central News Agency as a reliable source for war crimes commited by UN forces? I can't really think of an news source as unreliable as the KCNA. Maybe Fox News and even then, maybe.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your interest in this article. God knows it needs all the help it can get! The KNCA issue was discussed here and no real consensus was reached. I personally regard the KCNA as an utterly unreliable source of information and would support removing it, and in fact an outright rewrite of that entire section might not be a bad thing. Cerebellum (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, At least we won't need to worry about Nierva/RJ and his North Korea fetish since he's blocked. I can't believe people think the KCNA may be an reliable news source. It's not goddamm rocket science. Anyway, I don't think the section needs a rewrite. Just the removal of the claims made by the North Koreans. If we want to put war crimes committed by UN forces then we should put reliable sources in there.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the "reliability" of the KCNA (in my opinion, it's not), but rather the view point it represents. WP:NPOV describes that an article should give due weight to each view points represented, and like it or not, the North Korean view on the issue is significant. That said - I'm not going to stand in the way of these frankly absurd claims being removed from the article, but I would ask that the editor do a quick google search simply to see if a more reliable source can be found. It's been a while since I've read it, but Australia in the Korean War 1950–53 by Robert O'Neill goes a way in questioning the morality and actions of the UN coalition. Iciac (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That book seems like it could be a pretty good source for Australian War Crimes.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite the title, the first third at least regarded the war in a more general sense :) Iciac (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

pictures of dead people

this is imoprtant but it could also be triggering, warning should be added and/or images made optional to viewers. just like certain section topic boxes are hidden by default.

Canada in the Korean War

on the main Korean War page on that sidebar that talks about the numbers of troops etc. there is no mention of the Canadian Armed Forces. Why is this? They also fought in the Korean War. It would be nice if someone would add them to that page, as I am not sure how. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.57.171 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're there, by name in the "Belligerents" section, by their flag in the "strength" section, by name again in the losses section. Am I missing something? Cerebellum (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada fought with the 27th and the 29th Commonwealth Brigade, and all Canadian numbers are mixed with the British, Australian and New Zealand numbers I believe... NVM Jim101 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you cerebellum,they are on the losses chart but either someone took them off the belligrents and strength page or for some odd reason my monitor isn't showing them. So no, I don't believe you are losing your mind.:o) Also thanks to Jim 101. Your answer makes sense but I still think they should have there own flags on the side chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.57.217 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They are and have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

G-suits

A minor point in the section on air combat: the Korean War did not see the first combat use of g-suits. They were used in the latter stages of World War II by the USAAF and the RAF.63.3.21.129 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Many parts of this article are seem to be biased towards North Korea. In many cases, abuses by South Korea are cited while similar or worse ones in North Korea are not mentioned. For example:

"The resultant anti-communist South Korean government promulgated a national political constitution (17 July 1948) elected a president, the American-educated strongman Syngman Rhee (20 July 1948), and established the Republic of South Korea on 15 August 1948.[56] Likewise, in the Russian Korean Zone of Occupation, the USSR established a Communist North Korean government[38]:26 led by Kim Il-sung.[37] Moreover, President Rhee's régime expelled communists and leftists from southern national politics. Disenfranchised, they headed for the hills, to prepare guerrilla war against the US-sponsored ROK Government.[37]" (bolding is mine)

No mention of similar North Korean actions are to be found in this paragraph.

Similarly, in the section where this paragraph is located, comparable Soviet actions in North Korea are not mentioned:

"As the military governor, General John R. Hodge directly controlled South Korea via the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK 1945–48).[51]:63 He established control by first restoring to power the key Japanese colonial administrators and their Korean and police collaborators,[31] and second, by refusing the USAMGIK’s official recognition of the People's Republic of Korea (PRK) (August–September 1945), the provisional government (agreed with the Japanese Army) with which the Koreans had been governing themselves and the peninsula—because he suspected it was communist. These US policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked the civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare preceding, then constituting, the Korean civil war.[39] On 3 September 1945, Lieutenant General Yoshio Kozuki, Commander, Japanese 17th Area Army , contacted Hodge, telling him that the Soviets were south of the 38th parallel at Kaesong. Hodge trusted the accuracy of the Japanese Army report.[44]"

In addition, some sections seem to be arguing that the invasion of South Korea by North Korea was justified due to US actions. For example:

"These US policies, voiding popular Korean sovereignty, provoked the civil insurrections and guerrilla warfare preceding, then constituting, the Korean civil war.[39]"

or

"The USAMGIK declared martial law to control South Korea; in controlling the Koreans with Japanese colonial administrators and Korean collaborators, the US discredited its declarations of a “Free Korea” ".

In the first case, there is no mention of civil insurrections and guerrilla movements being funded by North Korea in an attempt to overthrow the South Korean government, as per the very source attached to it. In the second case, the sentence carries an unsourced opinion.

These seem to be violations of NPOV.

201.208.3.112 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)