Talk:Korean War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

FDR

"With only weeks to live, Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his way to the Yalta Conference in February 1945." seems misphrased. It was known he was in hill health, but not that he'd kick the bucket in a fortnight, right? --Belg4mit 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. Parsecboy 12:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Use MiszaBot?

As Ksyrie is taking my archives back to this page, I want to establish a consensus on using or not using MiszaBot;

Support side

I support archiving old messages that relate to Chinese casualty figures after at least a 3-day period has expired since the last post to that discussion. If this does go to Arbitration, this will make things simpler having all of the discussions in one place. wbfergus 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose side

Thank you, Kfc1864 04:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Ksyrie is copying or moving your archives? Your talk page archives, or the archives you've created for this article? Are they being done manually or is he using the Miszabot to automatically take them? Can you elaborate on this further please? Thanks. wbfergus 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's saying I'm removing the discussions. well, no, he's not using MiszaBot but just tell me if you support or oppose please.Kfc1864 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what Miszabot does. Perhaps you could explain a little more ? Parsecboy 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

new statistic

I just read in a newspaper that the PRC has revealed new figures for the KIA of its "volunteers": 673,800

http://www.welt.de/politik/article1072807/China_steckt_Milliarden_in_die_Aufruestung.html

"Erstmals offiziell genannt wurde aus Anlass des Armeejubiläums auch die Zahl der im Koreakrieg 1950 bis 1953 gegen die USA getöteten chinesischen „Freiwilligen“. Es waren genau 673.800."

/For the first time officially mentioned were due to the army jubilee the number of the chinese volunteers killed in the Korean War 1950 to 1953. It were exactly 6673,800./

Apparently, this is new information. The figure is much higher than the ones known so far, and as PRC itself offers this figure it should be used. After all, the PRC has no good reason to inflate the figure because it makes them look worse than before.

I hope you provide the chinese link,the one german website said the chinese formal statement doesn't mean that the chinese do say it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Translated through babelfish.altavista.com, the end of the article states:

"Hus speech before hundreds of a highest party and military leaders was yesterday the high point of one-week celebrations to the army anniversary. One million humans saw thereby also the first „achievement exhibition“ of the military, with which the army view of their so far few offered published technologies: of copies of their atomic and hydrogen bombs up to government inspection department systems for the detection of Chinese cities. From cause of the army anniversary also the number of the Chinese freiwilligen killed in the Korea war 1950 to 1953 against the USA „was for the first time officially called“. Were exactly 673.800."

Translated, the grammar is terrible, but I guess that's to be expected from software doing automatic translation, but you can still get the gist of what it's trying to say. wbfergus 09:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This site isn't a serious news agency,and from other chinese sources I had never heard of this number,check the google search by keyword 673.800 and Korean war,[1]

you cannot find any links.It is a false statement,never released by any chinese authorities.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I checked the most used chinese search link baidu and chinese google,with the keyword 673800（chinese number don't have a comma after one thousand），and 朝鲜战争(Korean war),you can find the result is zero,[2]

,[3] I am very curious how this german author made it to acquire this number,neither appeared in english website,nor in chinese one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a serious news agency, but a serious German newspaper. None of the kind that's known for inventing stories. The source was given as a speech about the army jubilee. As a new information it's compeltely normal that Google doesn't yield much or anything. Sven

But why there's no chinese or english newspaper ever reported this new chinese casualities？It's fairly strange,a german newspaper reporting this new finding rather by chinese newspaper.Furthemore,newspaper do invent story,especially when the editors collect the rumors like the urban legend.If this german newspaper donot invent the number,I had to admit,they are more truely familiar with the chinese than chinese themselves.If you can find another source other than this one to suggest the 673.800 death tolls,the story seems much plausible.But you cann't.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 08:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unusual in that an English language news source hasn't picked up on it and reported it as well. Germany wasn't even involved in the Korean War, so they have no reason to exaggerate either way. And, with the Iraq War, the relations between Germany and the US are a tad strained, to say the least, so they certainly shouldn't be doing (or reporting) anything to purposely make the US look better. I've been trying to find a corroborating article as well, and haven't had any luck either. wbfergus 11:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But it is fairly strange that this german newspaper claim it is the number made by chinese authorities.If it was from chinese news,we can surely find a chinese link,but we cann't.As I had found,the search result is zero!Surprisingly!--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter who read this story,one should question the reliabilities and honesty of this editor,Especially when not even a chinese source had ever reported the 673.800.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to screencopy this website,it's not the first time some newspaper invent stories relating China.And after some weeks,I will sum up all the false stories and to contribute one on the inauthenticities of some newspapers--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie: Die Welt is reliable source. Please stop your paranoia. Look around - no one here but you is behaving like this. --HanzoHattori 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because noone had ever question the reliabilities of news agency and website.You forget how I found the different casualities from two differnet american sites?The most ridiculous is that if China had ever released the new causualities number,why there's no chinese and english news agency ever known？Did the chinese authorities gave a news release conference specially dedicated for Die Welt?I dont know how the editors get this number,it's really exclusive,really.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to admit I forget one thing in China there's another name for the war 抗美援朝，so I add another two search with Baidu and Google China。Without any chaning,the result is still zero [4],[5]

--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Blown-up bridges removed again

What's the problem? It's not criminal to blow up your own civilians, and cut off your soldiers? The issue is pretty big in South Korea, even portrayed in the movies. --HanzoHattori 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Even an American reporter was injured.[6] --HanzoHattori 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

?What's the issue you are talking about,what blown-up bridges removed?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

South Korean engineers blew up the bridges all across the Korea despite many of them being crowded with the refugees. In Seoul a man was sent to stop the demolition, but he was 50 meters too late. Thousands of soldiers were cut off by these acts too. --HanzoHattori 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,I mistook your words with the previous discussion,where I pose the question what's the problem,and in this section you start with what' the problem？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nakdong_River#History for example. So, a crime or not? --HanzoHattori 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For military leader it's not a crime,but for civilian,really crime.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was meant to be more of a rhetoric question, as of "why and who removed it (just short mention) from the war crimes section". --HanzoHattori 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets ask our american buddies.They tended to keep or remove what ever they like or dislike.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaced in a better position. If someone's going to remove it again, at least put in some comments because it doesn't seem right to simply remove things with no explanation. --Steven 02:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

regarding POV in the article

I think its ridiculous that the editors here are still arguing. If Ksyrie is making biased moves on the article, revert it and then let it go. Trying to change his mind won't work, so ignore him and move on. Mr. Killigan 00:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement,you have just said this is english wikipedia,and should reflect more english reader opinion.That's what you had kept in mind,you had accepted the a-priori biased nature of this article.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aah, classic responce, Ksyrie. Eh?Kfc1864 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)d

Why is everyone against one person who has an opinion? What ever happened to freedom of expression? I'm not taking sides in any particular argument here, but I don't think Ksyrie is alone in terms of belief that this article is biased. As he and many others have repeatedly stated, Wikipedia English is read all over the world by readers of different background, and i'm sure there are plenty of people out there who share Ksyrie's belief but just do no express it on the talk page. Admittedly, he does put forth his arguments with a lack of tact, accusing Bleh of loving to use dead Chinese soldier pictures, however, I fail to see a better example of good sportsmanship from anyone else here. Comments meant purposefully to provoke arguements, such as Kfc's comments are just as bad as Ksyrie's accusation, AND with a lot less value compared to ksyries. If ksyries see's how something can be less biased, listen to him rather then reject him, and compromise, because chances are, of the millions of people who read this encyclopedia, someone else will agree with him. --Steven 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stating the obvious. Ignore Ksyrie and you won't have to entangle yourself into pointless arguments. You already know that nothing is going to change if Ksyrie just yells so stop provoking him. Work on the article, seriously. Mr. Killigan 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually said it sarcastically, Fires. I just did not want to go in to another fignt, so please adhere. The discussion is moderately finished.Kfc1864 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Misza Bot

I installed itt, if you don't want it remove it.Kfc1864 01:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

It seems that many people here simply cannot tolerate a balanced view and cannot put their personal biases aside. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's what I understand basic neutrality stands. If you cannot write in a neutral way, and if you cannot edit without offending views, please stay away from wikipedia. It is wikipedia reputation at stake here. (Postdoc 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Peer review

Could somebody help me with making a second request for a peer review for this article? I just tried and screwed everything up. The instructions are confusing and making me pull out my own hair. Mr. Killigan 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done; if you'd like to make any comments there, now would be the time. :-) Kirill 13:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

tons of what

From the article: Stalin suggested that he wanted lead and said that a yearly minimum of 25,000 tons would help.

Tons of what? Food? Munitions? bombs?

194.25.80.243 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)sinfoidulus

Well, given the sentence you quoted, it seems pretty obvious that it must be lead. I see absolutely no inference in that sentence that tons would relate to anything else. wbfergus 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People's Volunteer Army

I think many of the editors here would also be interested in the People's Volunteer Army article. I have posed a question on the talk page about a proposed edit, so that I don't get called a "vandal" again (by somebody we all know), and have several pertinent, well-referenced edits lost through a random revert requiring re-adding the previous inserts again. wbfergus 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is that? Jiejunkong or Ksyrie?Kfc1864 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox montage

I designed a new one but I'm not sure if you will like, I am open to improvements

File:Korean War Montage.JPG

Montage by Parsecboy

Montage by me

Bleh999 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's better than the current one with one korean civilian.But your version include one pic of chinese or north korean POW,it's biased,not only there were chinese or north korean POW but also the american and south korean one.I found you are obsessed with the pic depicting dead chinese soldiers or surrendered one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because the pic of the Chinese TAKING prisoners is not biased. Yeah. Jesus Christ, Ksyrie. Stop obsessing. --HanzoHattori 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so,User:Bleh once pose a second dead soldier pic [[7]] and [[8]].It's really hard for me to believe the good faith.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

GOD. As it goes and goes, I've got an urge to post the pictures of a dead Chinese soldiers everywhere it's possible. --HanzoHattori 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And actually, I think the picture of the Korean civilians is just fine. --HanzoHattori 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree,for the Korean War to have one Korean in pic is much more fine.But don't try to impose any american propaganda or something like propaganda.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: Nice touch with the sublimal message of the "imperialist" bombs falling down on these poor refugees in your montage. Ksyrie, for god's sake, I don't even want to know what you do with the articles of the Sino-Japanese conflicts or the Civil War. --HanzoHattori 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with the ariticle Sino-Japanese war?I have never edited the Sino-japanese war english article,I have to admit,I add some dead chinese generals name in chinese wikipedia.But what are you talking about？What do mean?I am not very clear about the underlying meaning of your words,please tell me more directly,my english is not so good.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's cut the insults here Hanzo, Ksyrie does have a point. Bleh, before you change the montage, can you possible tell us why you want to change the current montage to this new one, and what benefits it'll bring to the article as a whole? --Steven 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Parsecboy's one is better.Kfc1864 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the image of the plane dropping bombs. It's too vague, and could very easily be misconstrued as being from WWII, while a jet aircraft such as a MiG-15 or Sabre is unmistakably from the Korean War. I more or less like the rest of the images though. Parsecboy 09:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will try and improve it by changing that image. Bleh999 08:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Can we NOT archive the discussions that are a mere one week old? The discussion pages shouldn't be archived so frequently, because it becomes extremely hard to reference back if it's already in the archive. It also allows for more people to share their opinion on the comments. --Steven 04:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing to 1 week. The Main Page is 3 days.K14 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives should be created based on needs, not based on universally set time periods. Archives are done for exceedingly long talk pages so that past discussions are put away, ones that are no longer referenced. However, current archiving is done basically every week, even if the discussion page hasn't become burdened with many messages. In such cases, archiving is unnecessary.--Steven 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mao's motives

The section definitely has problems. The allegations sound like conspiracy theories and came only from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's controversial Mao: The Unknown Story, and is supported by no other historian. These unsupported claims does not deserve its own section and may be shortened to Chinese Involvement section.--PCPP 06:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's basically an original research rant. Far too much undue weight is given to Chang's gang of lobbyists. Elsewhere, too. El_C 07:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter because wikipedia is not censored, it should be worded so that is not presenting the allegations as a fact, but since you have no doubt read from 'other historians' perhaps you would like to quote how they dispute the allegations made by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday instead of attempting to censor the article by blanking content. Bleh999 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete distortion of the meaning of WP:CENSORED. We do not overrepresent minority points of view, per WP:NPOV. El_C 07:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over an overlong, speculative non-npov section, Bleh999. El_C 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You write that "there is no consensus for removal of this content" — actually, there was never consensus for adding it, to begin with. El_C 08:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, this article should not degenerate as a for—against Chang polemic. Not all articles that touch on China need to revolve around this rather unimportant populist scholar, so as to completely underwhelm the actual subject here: which is the Korean War. El_C 08:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That section has been in the article since mid July and the article and the talk page is quite active, so saying there was no consensus for adding it is strange, but maybe some of the editors don't actually read the article. Also I suggested he add evidence for dispute of those claims rather than blank content unilaterally as he did twice, if the allegations against Mao are disputed by other historians, we should see the evidence,. Bleh999 08:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mid-July is not that long ago. Likely it just wasn't noticed. PCPP's changes place that section within a more npov context. El_C 08:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the Korean War, not the Chang's views of [demonizing Mao, this time in the context of] the Korean War entry. El_C 08:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to read that book, but I still think it is very interesting information, also I wouldn't object to a similar section on a US leader in the article, this kind of information greatly enriches the article I believe. Bleh999 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You would not be able to to criticize American leaders to the same extent due to systemic bias. As for scholars who object to Chang's brand of unscholarly populism, one example I cited elsewhere was from the expert on Chinese history, Coordinator of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Professor Kaz Ross (profile) who concludes in Mao: the too familiar story (abstract), that while "The western media have been overwhelmingly supportive [of the book]... Mao: the Unknown Story is a misleading and dangerous text." She is far from the only one who thinks this. El_C 08:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Entirely POV - Leftist propaganda

Portions of this article are extremely POV. They appear to be one of those "moral equivelence" contrivences that those on the left create when the obvious evidence is that their side -- or people they like -- are entirely at fault for something terrible. They then attempt is to prove that the truth is "somewhere in the middle." I didn't check, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "flying ants" germ warfare joke has popped up from time to time and given credence.

War is a dirty, messy business for which those who start the them, and refuse to stop them are entirely responsible. Those who wave "naughty! naughty!" at those trying to avoid being pushed into sea should spend a little time on a front line. They might learn something. There are bad guys in this world, sometimes they have to be fought, and when that happens, no one will accept total defeat, with all that that implies.

In this case, the war and all its casualties are the responsibility of the communists. Entirely. The war started when Stalin gave the green light, and ended when he died. Its brutal conduct is a direct result of communist inhumanity. The rest is hindsight from an ideological tour d'ivresse that should have tumbled the moment the Berlin Wall came down and Soviet archives were opened.

And someone should remove Picasso's miserable propaganda painting, or relabel it. He was a Stalinist and believed the lies.68.5.64.178 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the North Koreans that attacked South Korea and also Stalin happened to die before the end of the war. And I'm South Korean It's slightly APOV but you can't get any better.K14 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Todays Revert (17 August)

I reverted the edits by User:Hongkyongnae mainly because they were not referenced. A couple of them were run-ons to existing sourced sentences, giving the impression the new POV was sourced, which it wasn't. A few of the edits seemed okay and acceptable, as I've read those in other sources, but some edits reeked of anti-American, anti-South Korean POV. wbfergus 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article could do with more footnotes and references Bleh999 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)