Good friend100 (talk | contribs) →A reminder to all editors: new section |
|||
(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 406: | Line 406: | ||
Please stop edit warring. I just checked the edit history and theres a long string of edit warring. [[WP:3RR]] will remain in effect and if you keep this up, somebody will have to file a report. [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
Please stop edit warring. I just checked the edit history and theres a long string of edit warring. [[WP:3RR]] will remain in effect and if you keep this up, somebody will have to file a report. [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:As a first (and required) step in getting Administrator sanctions, if the edit warring continues, below is an official RfC. [[User:wbfergus|<span style="color: #ff0000">wbfergus</span>]]<sup> </sup><sup> [[User talk:wbfergus|<span style="color: #009900">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh good! I keep forgetting about these simple resolutions. Seems to be getting a problem for me since I keep eyeing the banhammer. Poor, poor, AGF. [[User:Good friend100|Good friend100]] 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem. It took a bit of looking around. At first I was going to do a RfM, but it said this was needed first. [[User:wbfergus|<span style="color: #ff0000">wbfergus</span>]]<sup> </sup><sup> [[User talk:wbfergus|<span style="color: #009900">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Request for comment== |
|||
{{RFChist | section=Request for comment!! reason=Stop revert wars primarily over the picture in the [[Korean War#Fighting across the 38th Parallel (early 1951)]] section !! time=19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''Requesting comment''' on the following questions: |
|||
(copied from the picture page itself): |
|||
{{FeaturedPicture|Korean War causality}} |
|||
# Should the picture of the dead Chinese soldier stay in the article? |
|||
# Is it appropriate to perform a revert to a state in time that negates around 350-400 subsequent edits? |
|||
**1. Yes, at least until such time as a suitable replacement would be found. |
|||
**2. Never. [[User:wbfergus|<span style="color: #ff0000">wbfergus</span>]]<sup> </sup><sup> [[User talk:wbfergus|<span style="color: #009900">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**1. Yes, agreed with Wbfergus. |
|||
**2. No, it is not acceptable to revert several months worth of edits. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**1. Yes, no reason to hide anything, but I would ask if this particular picture has any significance? Has it been used elsewhere, or (like the picture of Baldomero Lopez climbing the seawall) does it have degree of notability in a of itself. |
|||
**2. Usually no, unless it is the most effective way back to an NPOV version, should never be done unilateraly. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**1. No, this is major point of bias. |
|||
**2. Usually no, unless it is to reverse unfounded and unilateral changes slipped at the first place and unless it can greatly improves the quality of the article. [[User:Postdoc|Postdoc]] 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:15, 12 October 2007
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
Korean: B; Hanja: top; RR: history |
Archives | |
---|---|
2006~March 2007 | |
April 2007~June 2007 | |
July 2007 | |
August 2007 | |
September 2007 | |
Topical Archives | |
Archive: Chinese Casualties |
GA review
Why did somebody archive the ongoing GA review? (Wikimachine 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think it was done on purpose. I think it was just because of the default setting applied to a bot to automatically archive threads that haven't had any activity in a wekk or something like that. I think MizaBot or something like that is what's setup to do it, mainly because of the huge discussion about the Chinese casualty figures. wbfergus Talk 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I re-copied this back over from the archives. Does anybody object to changing the archive parameter from 7 days to 30 days? wbfergus Talk 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Fail
- Fail - ok, maybe I'm too lazy for my own approach on an article like this - usually I correct all the grammar & concept mistakes myself & for the ones that I can't figure out I ask the main editors of this article to fix. This article has too many problems.
- Bad grammar & wording- the reason for this is that this article attracts many anon users who can't speak & write English very well... This often leads to many big ambiguities - i.e. the US began using the F-86 Sabre... they could defeat Migs... So, was F-86 Sabre introduced before or during the war? Was F-86 Sabre that uber amazing? I don't think that's the case, but obviously the bad grammar & wording make such misunderstanding inevitable.
- I started working on this today, but the "Post-WWII division of Korea" section really needs a lot of work, as I'm sure other sections do as well. A 'home' also needs to be found for the last sentence in the "Japanese occupation" section. Anybody willing to help out? wbfergus Talk 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- No cites- for an article as big as this? You need more cites, or these all sound like original research.
- Weasel wording/POV - this is very minor, I think, but you can avoid this if you heavily cite your articles - then it becomes more focused on the facts rather than emphasis.
- No improvements - the guy who submitted this article for GA review stopped working on it... And then the other guys aren't developing this article either... And there's obviously a dispute that's going on...
(Wikimachine 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
- Reference style or actually, lack thereof. For a "GA' rating or above, it seems that all of the occurences of references should be in the same general style, instead of the mess they currently are in. While there is no real "standard" or policy on reference styles (that I know of), it does seem that many of the problems could be avoided by the usage of some of the common templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources. This would at least make all of the references appear to be consistent in layout. Template usage isn't required, as the same layout can be done manually as well, but I think the templates would just be easier. For my part, I will also begin trying to standardize these, though it may take a week or so, depending on my job and other time issues. wbfergus Talk 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not enough refs? I see more than enough. Good friend100 21:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Admittedly, there are a bunch of refs, but at the same time, there are many statements in the article as well that need to be cited to a source, as the Cumings discussions have shown. For an article this long, there should be a lot more refs in the text, even if they are multiples of existing refs. This way, it's easier to verify which source the various points being made came from. I don't know if any existing text came from any of the external links, but if so, those should be cited and linked accordingly to the appropriate passages. wbfergus Talk 10:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have just finished going through the entire article and have satndardized all of the existing refs at this time by using the appropriate template. Hopefully when new refs are added, they will also use a template. For those wishing to do so, example citation templates can be seen at (and copied from) here. wbfergus Talk 15:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
regarding good article status
I think we should source and rewrite the "Air warfare" section. Its ambiguous and when I read it, its not very good. Good friend100 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I was going through standardizing the references, I noticed that about several sections as well. I also noticed that several of the references had plenty of additional information that could be used to cite many additional statements throughout the article as well. That's a major undertaking though, and would require several different editors of a period of time, weeks or more at the very least. I'm willing to participate on a very limited basis, maybe a few hours per week going through one reference and see if there are any statements in this article can be attributed to either a source or an additional source. If anybody else wants to do this as well, then I'd suggest being semi-organized so people don't overlap by working with the same source. Ideas, comments or suggestions? wbfergus Talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that we need to work on references. We don't have much, so I'll try and help. Good friend100 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll primarily be limited to what is available through the web, so I will start with Appelman's book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. It already is used to reference I think 5 different statements, but that's really no big deal. I think once there's more references cited inline, it will more easily highlight any additional sections or paragraphs that need more research into finding the applicable source material for the statements. Everything doesn't need to be cited, but presently there's a whole lot of 'stuff' that it's difficult or impossible to tell where the statement came from and whether or not it could be challenged as OR. wbfergus Talk 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can interviews work? My cousin interviewed my grandfather (who was in the Korean War) and then uploaded the information onto her project (or school) website. The information is IMO very valuable since its directly from a veteran. But I don't know if its allowed to be used. Good friend100 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Probably wouldn't be considered reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, though in some cases interviews can be used. I don't remember the specifics, so you'll probably want to look around on WP:RS or possibly WP:V. I think the big stumbling block would be by Wikipedia standards, is your cousin a reliable source, though maybe one could argue as well using WP:V that if the interview is widely accessible via the web, and the school's web site doesn't allow anything, but the work that is there undergoes some sort of review process for accuracy, then it may meet the standard of "verifiability, not truth". And then again, that interview itself would also have to meet a different set of standards WP:NOR since it would be considered a 'primary source', so how it could be used is more stringent. It could not provide any analysis or conclusions that aren't already in print. It would pretty much be limited to only providing raw data. It's a rather complicated quagmire to meet all of conditions, and while the information may be very good and accurate, there are the additional
requirements of reliability and verifibility. wbfergus Talk 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)(minor edit wbfergus Talk 10:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC))
well my cousin interviewed my grandfather, so its about whether he is accurate or not. An interview from a veteran is a primary source and I don't think theres anything wrong with using his interview unless he made everything up. But if Wikipedia's policies prevent it from being used well then I guess its ok. Good friend100 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think for many of us, our grandparents and parents are great sources of information on how things were in the past. My own grandparents have a lot of stories to tell about trying to survive in China during the civil war period and through Japanese aggression. But like everything else, a usable source on WP needs to pass WP:RS. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Interviews with individuals cause reliability problems. People see things from their own perspectives and are often biased. Plus I don't think it would be proper to try to use interviews from members of their own family. John Smith's 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear Weapons section
Suggested material for nuclear weapons section. According to historian Bruce Cumings, Truman publicly threatened the use of the atomic bomb when the People's Republic of China entered the war (following MacArthur's crossing of the 38th parallel). This was a possibility that had been discussed and included in contingency plans. On the day Truman threatened use of atomic bomb, Air Force General Stratemeyer sent order to General Hoyt Vandenberg that the Strategic Air Command augment its capacities and that this should include “atomic capabilities”. MacArthur requested use of atomic bombs in 24 Dec 1950, although it was not approved, and a subsequent request by his successor General Ridgeway for the same in May 1951 was refused. The main reason the weapons were not used was because of a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate. See Bruce Cumings, Korea's Place in the Sun: A History, WW Norton & Company, 1997, pp 289-92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.125.92 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks, but we've already decided to pull Cumings' references due to problems over undue weight. John Smith's 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's a misleading statement with which I very much disagree. There was a great deal of debate about whether Cumings was acceptable or not (see the archive, for example here and also Talk:Bruce Cumings) and I for one think he is a perfectly acceptable source. He is, undeniably, a leading scholar on the Korean War. Some people disagree with him, he is "controversial" in some circles, but he is considered a leading scholar and this has been demonstrated by several editors including myself--pretending there is consensus to never cite a U of Chicago prof on his area of expertise is not going to fly. He should not be allowed to dominate the article, of course, but it is utterly absurd to ban him completely. It also violates Wiki policies about representing a multiplicity of views and is, in my opinion, a bit anti-intellectual. I am not familiar with the specifics of the nuke scenario described by 86.153.125.92 above, but unless there is countervailing evidence that suggests this is way off base I would argue that it is very reasonable for this view to be represented (unless of course it already is in some fashion--I have not even checked).
- In general I think Cumings can be used as a source, so long he is not used notably more than others and so long as we do not put in specific claims he makes which have been severely called into question by other scholars.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, Cumings was pulled - there's disagreement over whether he is a suitable source or not. However, if you want to say that he should be allowed in, I could equally insist on Chang and Halliday having a place here - a "ban" on their views would also violate wikipedia policy and be a bit anti-intellectual, as you put it. So where are we going to go on this? John Smith's 19:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know he was pulled, but the fact is that there are several other editors who disagree with this. Your first comment in reply to the anon user implied there was consensus about the issue, but obviously there is not and I was pointing this out. I strongly, strongly believe he is (in general, but not in all specifics) a valid source and that is where I am going with my comment. No remotely convincing case explaining why a leading scholar on the war cannot be cited (at all!) has been presented (the case as it stands basically consists of the idea that he is "controversial" and that some people hate his politics--neither of which obviate the fact that he is an acknowledged authority in the field). The fact that a decision to pull him was made earlier does not matter that much to me since it was not a consensus decision and since the rationale for it was incredibly weak.
- Tangentially, since this is not so much what I'm concerned about at this point, there is simply no quid pro quo between inclusion or non-inclusion of Cumings and the Chang/Halliday book. I still do not know enough about the latter to say what should be done with it (I'm looking at the China Journal reviews now), but Cumings and Chang/Halliday can and should be evaluated as sources independently of one another--they have no relation except that I think you argued to remove Cumings after Chang/Halliday was removed. All I know is that Cumings is a respected historian in the field and is easily a valid source for our purpose. I also know that the Chang/Halliday book is primarily about Mao (so including it does not make intrinsic sense--the war is obviously not the focus), that Chang is not a historian at all, and that Halliday, while a historian, is not focused on the Korean War, while the one book he wrote on the war he co-wrote with Cumings. Prima facie it seems to me that the Chang/Halliday book (not about the war, and by two non-specialists) is thus far less ripe for inclusion than anything by Cumings (who is a specialist on the topic). This does not preclude the fact that the former can be included--perhaps it can, I really don't know for certain though I might firm up my position on that. My point is that Cumings obviously can be included, and that the two sources need to be considered separately and on their own merits rather than in comparison to one another. Saying "if this one, then that one" is not a logical argument as they are two completely different sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- That Cumings is a "leading scholar" is an opinion, not fact - please remember that.
- On Chang and Halliday, I was pointing out that some of the arguments you've used apply to them just as much as they do to Cumings. Though I should point out that you do not need to be a professional historian to write on history - being one does not make you automatically more credible than one who is not. Equally that in the past one has concentrated on certain fields does not mean that person cannot move into another one.
- I don't oppose any reference to Cumings, but at the same time I would object to anyone who refused a reference from Chang & Halliday without a specific reason. John Smith's 20:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder at what point does the assertion "leading scholar" become fact as opposed to opinion? Who, according to you are "leading scholars" of the Korean War and what is your criteria? What is the appropriate criteria for wikipedia? We know that Cumings has received several awards for Korean scholarship including one from the republic of Korea itself, we know that he is widely cited in the field, and even that many of those scholars who disagree with him have acknowledged his importance and his scholarship. All of this is easily demonstrable. What evidence do you have to offer to demonstrate that Cumings views are negatable with regards to this article? The suggestion at hand pertains to a paragraph referencing the work of Cumings, what do Chang and Halliday have to do with this? BernardL 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Bernard, "leading scholar" is a subjective term. An award is evidence that a particular body respects his or her work - there is no "international history committee" that can award such status. I'm not sure of any scholar in any field that I would term "leading".
- By the way, please do not put text in via a minor edit - that isn't what the function is for. I think you made a mistake there, so I retract my edit summary comment that you were trying to sneak it in. But let's discuss the content a bit more, please.
- I brought Chang and Halliday up as their works were objected to because of academic criticism. I pointed out that if criticism in the field cannot prohibit reference to Cumings' work then that should apply to them as well. John Smith's 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is more acceptable. Needs tweaking in places (only had a quick look), but much more balanced. John Smith's 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- BernardL, that he recieved that Kim Dae Jung award (the very first ever awarded to anybody), is not notable in and of itself, as I remeber somebody else saying somewhere. Maybe after some amount of time has passed and there is widespread agreement that all of the future awardees are truly worthy of such an award, then it would hold some weight. As it is now though, there is nothing to base the significance of the award on. Is it purely political or is it truly for something worthy? Only time will tell, and not enough time has elapsed yet. wbfergus Talk 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. John Smith's 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will be looking over fergus's contribution in detail in due time. That Cumings was chosen as the first historian of Korea to receive the award when there were so many available to choose from certainly is notable. That fergus and the workmate he recruited deny any importance to this award and even impugn Nobel Laureate Kim Dae Jung only suggests the POV of their own position.BernardL 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding you POV statement, if you seriously want to improve the article, go right ahead. It needs an awful lot of copyeditting to get things flowing smoothly. But, if all you are interested in is trying to weasel in some contentious claims that are disputed by the facts, please try to find another article. This one needs enough work without wasting time refuting contentious claims. wbfergus Talk 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to John Smith's and wbfergus above re: Cumings. Of course "leading scholar" is a subjective term. Evaluating the expertise of anyone on any topic is always, always subjective. If we let that stop us we could never determine the expertise/reliability of any source, but of course we do (John Smith's comment that he is not sure of anyone he would term a "leading scholar" in any field is quite strange--labeling a given scholar leading or important is something that happens in most all fields (certainly in history) all of the time, so I really don't get where he's coming from).
- Regarding you POV statement, if you seriously want to improve the article, go right ahead. It needs an awful lot of copyeditting to get things flowing smoothly. But, if all you are interested in is trying to weasel in some contentious claims that are disputed by the facts, please try to find another article. This one needs enough work without wasting time refuting contentious claims. wbfergus Talk 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The way one should determine the expertise of someone in a given area is by considering how other scholars in the field view their work. John and wbfergus and some others apparently don't think Cumings is an expert/leading scholar, but that is quite irrelevant. What is relevant is several points that have already been brought up. As I noted once before, "Cumings' books have been reviewed in H-Net, Pacific Historical Review, the Journal of Interdisciplinary History, the Journal of American History, American Historical Review, Reviews in American History, Journal of Military History, and Political Science Quarterly--i.e. by basically all of the notable academic journals which cover his topic. Writing in Reviews in American History, respected historian Burton Kaufman...noted that Cumings' book The Origin of the Korean War was "an exceptional work in both conception and execution" and that Cumings had "established a reputation as one of the nation's leading experts on the war."" BernardL provided further evidence of the view scholars hold of him here (particularly some of the 7 numbered points), and wbfergus provided us the article Major Trends of Korean Historiography in the US which includes an entire section on Cumings and even mentions that he had a cadre of students who he has influenced and who are beginning to publish.
- So can we please end this debate, which is utterly pointless and more than a bit embarrassing, about whether or not a key/leading/important/respected/whatever-term-you-want-to-use scholar in the field can be cited? As to the Kim Dae Jung award, go ahead and dismiss it if you like (though personally I see no reason to). Cumings is clearly a respected scholar in the field regardless. I would hope though that that award would give pause to anyone who wants to label Cumings as having an "alleged 'left-wing, pro-North Korean'" as wbfergus did. If he is so pro-NK, why an award from the South Korean government? Seems a bit odd (and wbfergus's speculation that the award is perhaps "purely political" while he still thinks Cumings has a NK bias is a bit funny--Cumings really knows how to play both sides I guess!).
- Regardless, sticking in the "alleged 'left-wing, pro-North Korean'" phrase after Cumings name is a blatant violation of NPOV, just as it would be a violation to refer to George W. Bush casually in an article in which he was quoted as an "alleged fascist" or FDR as an "alleged communist." I should have thought that that would be obvious, but I guess not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- With respect to the new material added by BernardL and wbfergus. It seems Bernard was using a long block quote from Cumings and I don't think that is desirable, rather the key points should be summarized. Also as John Smith's said above the addition should not have been listed as a minor edit but that could easily have been a mistake.
- Regardless, sticking in the "alleged 'left-wing, pro-North Korean'" phrase after Cumings name is a blatant violation of NPOV, just as it would be a violation to refer to George W. Bush casually in an article in which he was quoted as an "alleged fascist" or FDR as an "alleged communist." I should have thought that that would be obvious, but I guess not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Cumings material does not really seem that controversial to me though, and in fact I'm not entirely clear how it is different from some of the material in the rest of the section. wbfergus claims that Cumings' view "is contradicted however by the facts," but the material that follows seems largely in agreement with Cumings. Basically Cumings says Truman threatened the use of the atomic bomb (which he did at a press conference), that it was considered, but ultimately rejected. Perhaps the novelty in Cumings' claim is the phrase "the main reason the weapons were not used was because of a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate" but I'm not sure. It's unclear to me what the debate is, or how what Cumings wrote is contradicted by the facts.
- The whole section needs to be revised (and cited much more thoroughly--readers have no idea where the discussion of the "three postulates" comes from) and generally cleaned up. The discussion of the three hypothetical situations is a bit confusing (how do they relate to what actually happened?) and the third one does not seem to relate at all to nuclear weapons, at least as written, which is what the section should be focused on. I don't know the source material for this stuff, but it needs to be synthesized in a more coherent fashion. If Cumings is making a novel and notable claim about the nuke option then that claim should be mentioned, but right now I don't really understand what is important/new in the passage cited by BernardL or how wbfergus's additions go against that passage.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Bigtimepeace, it seems that we keep posting over each other. I think perhaps I adderessed several of your points with the last paragraph. Without engaging in OR or synthesis, I tried to recap the events as both sources stated. Regarding the other 5 paragraphs, they were pretty much like Bernard's, except the concepts expressed were extensive, and I didn't know how summarise them properly without walking down the path of synthesis or making the entire section seem out of context to the points stated within the quoted work. Is there a better (more readable) way of showing that those 5 paragraphs are all part of the same 'cite'? wbfergus Talk 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- As far as the five paragraphs, it might be better to put footnotes after each one--I don't think this would be a huge stylistic problem, but maybe there's a better solution--right now it seems more like the last paragraph is sourced but the others are not. I'm still unclear why it's necessary to go into so much detail about the three hypotheses, and also don't really understand how they relate to the ultimate decision to not use the bomb. I have a feeling that a lot of it could be trimmed, using only the parts of the scenarios that relate fairly directly to the idea of using atomic weapons.
- Bigtimepeace, it seems that we keep posting over each other. I think perhaps I adderessed several of your points with the last paragraph. Without engaging in OR or synthesis, I tried to recap the events as both sources stated. Regarding the other 5 paragraphs, they were pretty much like Bernard's, except the concepts expressed were extensive, and I didn't know how summarise them properly without walking down the path of synthesis or making the entire section seem out of context to the points stated within the quoted work. Is there a better (more readable) way of showing that those 5 paragraphs are all part of the same 'cite'? wbfergus Talk 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the last paragraph you added, I think the sentence "the decision not to use the atomic bomb was also not due to "a disinclination by the USSR and PRC to escalate", but rather due to pressure from UN allies, notably Britain, the British Commonwealth, and France" is problematic as it is OR. Cumings argued one thing, another source argued another, and you (i.e. we, wikipedia) sided with the latter source. We can't really do this, though I have no idea which source is more accurate in my judgment. Also while I appreciate the effort to summarize the section, I think it would be better if we could hit the key points throughout in a more succinct fashion (with various viewpoints expressed) and then avoid a summary.
- I think we need BernardL (who I assume has Cumings' book) to clarify what Cumings is saying since I'm a bit fuzzy on that passage and I think most readers would be as well. Perhaps then we could make a list of the key points that need to be addressed in this section (including the exact chronology) and then use multiple sources for any points that are highly contentious (assuming there are some). I think it might be good to rewrite/reorganize most of the section, although obviously some of the stuff we have now can be used.
- Finally, I would note to wbfergus that the sources he is using are obviously not the best (a book published by the army in 1972, and the Knightley book from 1982 which is about war correspondents in different conflicts--not about the Korean War). Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun is a better source than either of these, but really we should be using material from recent books written directly about the war. I assume the nuke questions are covered pretty thoroughly in such sources, as they are extremely important both for this conflict but also for their wider geopolitical ramifications. Also an earlier version mentioned something about Ike intimating he would use nukes if NK failed to sign the peace treaty in 1953. That was unsourced so it's good that it was removed, but if true it would obviously be worthy of discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I tried finding the reference to Ike and the bomb, but couldn't find it in the online book sources I usually check (Center for Military History - Korean War, Command and General Staff College, and Military History Institute), though it's possible I missed it. I was just opening up the different chapters, etc. and doing a search for either "atomic" or "nuclear". The sources may be a bit biased, but they are all peer-reviewed before publishing, and meet all of the criteria for verifiable and reliable sources. Schnabel himself was an army historian in Tokyo during the Korean War, so he isn't tainted from being an actual participant, but also had access to many military documents (casualty reports, situation reports, etc.) shortly after they were created that many follow-on historians would neglect or otherwise gloss over. The date of the publication is irrelevant in this case.
- Finally, I would note to wbfergus that the sources he is using are obviously not the best (a book published by the army in 1972, and the Knightley book from 1982 which is about war correspondents in different conflicts--not about the Korean War). Cumings' Korea's Place in the Sun is a better source than either of these, but really we should be using material from recent books written directly about the war. I assume the nuke questions are covered pretty thoroughly in such sources, as they are extremely important both for this conflict but also for their wider geopolitical ramifications. Also an earlier version mentioned something about Ike intimating he would use nukes if NK failed to sign the peace treaty in 1953. That was unsourced so it's good that it was removed, but if true it would obviously be worthy of discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding why I included the three hypotheses, the last clearly didn't mention the possibility of using the bomb, but it is important to note that a non-nuclear solution was considered as well, it wasn't just a bunch of guys sitting around trying to justify the use of a nuke. They examined in detail possible alternatives and the consequences, and those were the three viable solutions that they saw to minimize UN casulties, which was their whole point. They wouldn't have been doing their jobs if they considered how to minimize Chinese or NK casualties, that goes completely against common sense in a conflict to maximize your enemies casualties.
- My statement about why the bomb wasn't isn't OR at all, but rather stated in the text that I cited, though I did try to summarize that, as it was split across several pages and many paragraphs. I in no way though changed the context or the meaning of the words, so therefore it wasn't synthesis or other original research. I'll go ahead and add the additional ref's at the end of each paragraph, we'll at least get a chance to see how it looks. wbfergus Talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- The sources you have are fine for now, I would definitely not remove them, I'm just saying we should try to find better ones, which I think would be fairly easy to do (for example I'm sure the Burton Kaufman and William Stueck--both of whom are excellent scholars--would be helpful). The date of the Schnabel book is extremely relevant, as is the fact that it was published by the army. The best sources are going to be academic historians in the field, and the key documents about the decision on the bomb in Korea are going to come from declassified documents from the Truman administration (minutes from NSC meetings, etc.), most of which will be at the Truman Library or the National Archives. Many if not most of these documents were not declassified in 1972, so Schnabel could not have used them. There might be whole books or articles (I'm sure there are the latter) just about the nuke issue, and recent publications along these lines would be the best.
- My statement about why the bomb wasn't isn't OR at all, but rather stated in the text that I cited, though I did try to summarize that, as it was split across several pages and many paragraphs. I in no way though changed the context or the meaning of the words, so therefore it wasn't synthesis or other original research. I'll go ahead and add the additional ref's at the end of each paragraph, we'll at least get a chance to see how it looks. wbfergus Talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify on the OR issue, it's not because you summarized it improperly or anything like that. It's because we have two sources (Cumings and yours) which offered two different explanations for why the US did not go the nuclear route. I have no idea which one I find believable, but as it stands we cannot arbitrarily endorse one over the other and if we do (which is basically what you did) that is an OR violation. I think the best way to clear this up is to find some better sourcing (better than Cumings and the other two) that is more authoritative on these issues.
- Finally with the three hypotheses (and thanks for adding in the footnotes, that clears up the sourcing issue), I still think you should try to shorten/synthesize them considerably, sticking to the key points about nukes. Or we could just try to find some better sources and let the thing sit as is for awhile. I'll do a quick search now and see if I can come up with an article or two in some academic journals.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. Wait a minute. I just realized the "three hypotheses" section added by wbfergus was taken verbatim from here. This is a massive copyvio and must be removed immediately which is what I am going to do. I'm not saying anything about the content, but we can't steal whole blocks of text (not even with quotation marks, much less without them) and insert them in an article. wbfergus you really should know better than that. If you want to put this back in somehow please paraphrase the salient points and/or use quote marks when you quote directly. I have to deal with enough of this stuff with my undergraduate's papers--though they copy from Wikipedia!--and certainly don't want to see it here. The section might not make sense for awhile but we can't keep that copyvio stuff in any longer.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, to wbfergus or anyone else, if anything else has been added to this article in copyright violation as was the material I just removed, please go take it out right away. We can always re-add the information later in a way that does not violate copyright.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the source I used is a copyright violation, though maybe the one from Cumings is (since it is a verbatim quote from his book), I don't know though, I'll let you decide since you are so worried about this aspect. However, the one I used, as you previously stated, is from the Army, a US Government entity. As such, it is not copyrighted, as it wasn't conducted by somebody under contract to the army. See United States Code; Title 17; Chapter 1; § 105 Subject matter of copyright; United States Government works.
- Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.
- I just reviewed the document again, and I can't find any copyright notice anywhere in it. It also clearly states on the inside cover (first page): CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY. So, it looks like this is not a copyright violation, and I'll re-add it, though I will agree that it does need some editing somehow. I'll take a stab at it later today or later this week and see what I can come up with. wbfergus Talk 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- IANAL either, but I would be quite shocked if James F. Schnabel, the author, did not have some copyright claims considering it is his work. I don't know if the fact that it is a US army publication has any bearing, and since you are not a lawyer the fact that you plucked out one section of the US code does not persuade me either way. Also we're looking at an internet reproduction of the work, not the original text, which may or may not have a copyright claim on it. Wikipedia has a rather strong policy on copyright infringement (we assume there is a copyright unless we know otherwise), so I think we very much want to err on the side of non-inclusion. I must say I find it strange that we are even arguing about this.
- I just reviewed the document again, and I can't find any copyright notice anywhere in it. It also clearly states on the inside cover (first page): CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY. So, it looks like this is not a copyright violation, and I'll re-add it, though I will agree that it does need some editing somehow. I'll take a stab at it later today or later this week and see what I can come up with. wbfergus Talk 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- But aside from that, and this should be obvious, we don't want to merely copy three paragraphs from one author's work (an old, outdated work at that) and just dump it in the article (I already made the same complaint about the Cumings passage, but at least that is quoted and is a much smaller section of text). Please try to edit this down asap (not in a week), and the best thing to do is just remove it wholesale while you are working on it, in case it is a copyright violation (I might do that again myself, but I think you should do it as I don't want to edit war about this). Also, please use quotes when you are quoting someone. That's what they are for, and it's very weird to have to point that out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, shortened and re-worded so that it is not a direct quote. The (legal) code I quoted though was verbatim from the Wikipedia copyright policy page, it wasn't something I pulled out of the air. I assumed that if it was part of official policy, there must be some validity in it. If Schnabel does have any copyrights on his work, it would be listed under a subsequent publication not affiliated in any way with the US Government and through an independent publisher. The Center for Miltary History site does not include any copyright notices on their site either, so since the publications they use also don't have a copyright, it seems perfectly fair to assume that there aren't any. I have though seen many 'books' published on-line that still prominently display the copyright notice within the book, which these (specifically this one), does not. Anyway, with the rewrite, it's all a moot point anyhow. I think it may still need some work, but if there was any doubt about it, this should at least be enough to clear it up for now. Thanks for the concern though. I wouldn't want most 'modern era' US military war articles on here to be stripped of their content due to people citing sources from the same site.
- BTW, usually copyright notice say something along the lines of "may not be reproduced in whole or in part", so I think that merely surrounding something with quotes would still be considered a copyright violation, if the work was in fact copyrighted. wbfergus Talk 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the rewrite, and yes, you definitely cannot reproduce large parts of works--probably more than a couple of paragraphs, I don't know the exact limit--even if you quote them. My only point with the quotes was that if you are quoting someone directly, you do need to use quotation marks. This is true regardless of whether or not something is copyrighted. So if, in your slimmed down version, there are passages which are word for word identical with the original texts, you do need to use quotation marks. Again, this applies irrespective of copyright (for example quoting something said at a conference, or a journalist quoting a source--situations where copyright does not come into play).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, usually copyright notice say something along the lines of "may not be reproduced in whole or in part", so I think that merely surrounding something with quotes would still be considered a copyright violation, if the work was in fact copyrighted. wbfergus Talk 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fergus's trimming was actually pretty meager. His six paragraph contribution is now at 723 words (employing a word processor for counting). After investigating the originating source, by my counts 458 of those 723 words are still copied verbatim; and as Bigtime justly points out, there are no quotation marks to indicate that the material is a verbatim source extraction from an external source. If a practice of copying public army scholarship and pasting it in wikipedia articles catches on it would have serious implications for the wikipedia project as we know it. As for the quote that I added from Cumings, there was no copyvio involved in such an action. It was adequately sourced and framed with quotation marks. It was also not exceptionally long. Nevertheless I am all for copyediting it accurately for the purposes of concision, better yet I am for reviewing the position of Cumings on the nuclear issues. The quote that was originally submitted was not my selection, it was that of an anonymous user. It may not be a definitive or sufficiently comprehensive statement of his position. I agree with Bigtime that the sources that Fergus used are dated. I also share the skepticism of Bigtime concerning excessive reliance on army scholarship, especially while pretending that it is stating all of the relevant facts and interpreting the set of facts correctly. For this section (and perhaps for other section too) historians employed by the army seem to have been afforded undue weight.
- Regarding the datedness of the source it is interesting to note the following tidbits from "The Korean War: Handbook of the Literature and Research" by Brune and Higham, which is the first book listed in the reference section, what follows are some highlights, which for clarity I have separated into numbered paragraphs: (all quotes are from: The Korean War Handbook of the Literature and Research, ed. Lester H. Brune and Robin Higham (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996, p.298-302)
- 1) "In the MacArthur hearings, the Truman administration went to great lengths to argue that the United States did not have conventional strength in the air or adequate atomic stockpile to undertake such an offensive. Recent scholarship, based on the now-declassified records of U.S. military planning, paints a different picture and shifts the terms of reference for the Truman administration's consideration of potential use of the atomic option. The idea that Truman was absolutely unwilling to break what Eisenhower called the "gentleman's agreement" to limit the fighting to Korea and not to use atomic weapons has lately come under some doubt."
- 2) "One of the most extensive examinations of Truman's use of atomic policy is Roger Dingman's "Atomic Diplomacy during the Korea War" ( 1988- 1989)...Dingman discerns a clear pattern that he believes holds true for the entire Korean War: that "atomic diplomacy was an element of American statecraft throughout the conflict." Dingman states that there were four periods when the Truman administration considered the use of atomic weapons: twice in the early war days of July 1950, in November 1950 just after the massive Chinese intervention in the war, and finally in April 1951. He maintains that while neither Truman nor Eisenhower actually came close to deploying the bomb, Truman came closest in April 1951."
- 3) "Recent military histories of the war have collaborated and even anticipated Dingman's thesis. Callum A. MacDonald, Korea: The War before Vietnam (1986), and Bruce Cumings and Jon Halliday, Korea: the Unknown War (1988), both cite a trial run for use of nuclear weapons in Korea, codenamed Operation Hudson Harbor, in which U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers overflew and dropped dummy or conventional weapons on North Korea as a training exercise for an atomic attack and a means of signaling U.S. resolve at the then-recessed armistice talks. Cumings and Halliday see Truman's public rattling of the atomic bomb in November 1950 not as a faux pas but as a "carefully weighed threat based on atomic contingency planning to use the bomb." British military historian and journalist Max Hastings , The Korean War (1987), summarizes the new view of the Truman administration's policy toward atomic weapons in Korea. Posing the question of how close Truman came to using atomic weapons against China, he responds: "much closer, the answer must be, than the allies cared to believe at the time." Hastings suggests that "if Truman and his fellow members recoiled from bearing responsibility for so terrible an act, America's leading military men, from the Joint Chiefs downward, were far more equivocal and seemed less disturbed by the prospect.""
- 4)"In Danger and Survival. Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (1988), McGeorge Bundy asks us not to forget that while Truman allowed contingency planning for atomic war and authorized the development of new and more effective weapons, he was determined never to use them. Bundy bases his conclusions on Truman's state of mind as given in part in the private musings of the president, which are collected in Robert H. Ferrell (ed.), Off The Record ( 1980). The problem is that Truman's most definitive private statement that he would not use atomic weapons was on April 24, 1954, after the end of the war and when he was a former president with ample time for reflection. His diary entry of May 1952, during the war and when he was commander in chief, is far more belligerent. He suggests that the negotiators ask their communist counterparts at Panmunjom whether they want an end to the war or "China and Siberia destroyed." While considerable evidence shows that Truman was personally frustrated by his inability to use atomic weapons, the question remains: Is there any reason to believe that this frustration could ever overcome Truman's determination not to use atomic or conventional weapons against China?"
- The authors conclude this section of the book with the following:..."If a new synthesis is emerging on Truman and atomic war, it holds that Truman was prepared to use atomic contingency planning, deployment of actual weapons near the battlefield, public statements, and even trial nonnuclear bombing runs to influence his opponents in Korea and to quiet his critics in the United States. Because of some very clear limitations, he was not prepared to use atomic weapons again except under the most dire circumstances."
- Finally I propose that the current section is best described as a mess and should be removed to talk for more work. The most important scholarly perspectives and issues should identified and described in talk first, and then a way should be found to formulate a consensus that covers the most important issues and gives due weight to the notable perspectives. Currently, I think this article suffers from an attempt to obfuscate the many complexities involved with understanding the war, preferring to shove one monolithic,dated, US-centric party line down readers throats. An example is Fergus's systematic attempts to delete all mentions of civil war in the article. The nature of the war, and what weights to give internal and external factors and the relations between them are genuine bones of contention in the scholarly literature. The article should make a serious attempt to reflect such complexity.BernardL 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- The section is pretty unreadable as it is, because it moves from BernardL's material to wbfergus's and pretty much reads like two people arguing one after the other with no transition (and in fact that's what it is). I would support pulling the whole thing for the time being and developing it here in a new talk page section.
- Good finds Bernard, obviously there are better sources available, and my inclination would be to scrap the whole section and start from scratch with better articles and books. I snagged the Roger Dingman article you mentioned from JSTOR (it was published in International Security in 1988) and it looks very good, certainly better than the army book and even the Cumings book. I might try to look through some of it and post some ideas here, and I could also pass the article along to anyone who is interested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Casulties propaganda from communnist side
The author does not cite any reports. Gives a vague disclainer about conflicting numbers form various scholarly journals (alas none are mentioned0. Then the author goes on to cite some purported figures by a communist regime.
Bad history, bad communist propaganda piece
"The Korean War finally ended in July 1953. Left in its wake were four million military and civilian casualties, including 33,600 American, 16,000 UN allied, 415,000 South Korean, and 520,000 North Korean dead. There were also an estimated 900,000 Chinese casualties. Half of Korea's industry was destroyed and a third of all homes" source http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html
Apparently one third of the Peoples Republic of China's army was wiped out and or disabled in Korea.
America's air superiority led to enormous chinese casulties in what a commanding general called a meat grinder. China would send its human wave , Nato forces would withdraw and then the chinese troops would be annihiliated by bommbing. The US airforce called this the meat griner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- With what are you finding fault, exactly? Be a little more specific, and we can address your concerns. As for China's army, in 1950, the PLA was 5 million strong, with an additional 5.5 million-man militia. 900k is hardly 1/3 of even the regular army, let alone total forces. Parsecboy 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Parsecboy Its a history article not a propaganda piece for some trotskyite magazine as for your imagined communist troop strength cite your sources, 80 % of Chinese PLA was in Nkorea , 2.7 million /3 =900,000 hardly a success story for your communists. The NYTimes in various articles of the period cited the ten of thousands of POW defectors MacGregor NYTIMES NOV 16, 1953. Also some American casualities were due to the cowardly execution of of out unarmed men by the communists. Robert Alden NYTIMES 8-30-195 If this is your article it's something out of the ministry of truth from George Orwells 1984 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, cite specific concerns instead of vague statements. If there are specific lines of text you feel to be erroneous, present them here. You could also place {{fact}} templates in the article directly. The PLA was only around 2.8 million by 1953. In 1950, it was over 5 million. Read the History of the People's Liberation Army article. Also, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) Parsecboy 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Id pay no futher attention to this biased annonimous user, my advice, theres always Conservapedia!, a place where youll feel right at home.200.83.57.71 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Finaly over
someone needs to add the new treaty sighned by both North and South Korea stating the war is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.176.65 (talk • contribs)
- There was no treaty signed ending the war; North and South signed an agreement calling for negotiations that would result in a treaty to end the war. There's a big difference. Parsecboy 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
still nice to have the future of one. might as well add the peace treaty, doesnt look like its fading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Casualties
The total numbers of casualties suffered by all parties involved may never be known. In Western countries, the numbers have been subjected to numerous scholarly reviews, and in the case of one U.S. estimate, the number was revised after a clerical error was discovered. Each country's self-reported casualties were largely based upon troop movements, unit rosters, battle casualty reports, and medical records.
The Western numbers of Chinese and/or North Korean casulties are based primarily on battle reports of estimated casualties, interrogation of POWs and captured documents. The Chinese estimation of UN casualties states "The after-war joint declaration of the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Korean People's Army claimed that they 'eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries.' The vague 'eliminated' number gave no details to that of dead, wounded and captured." Regarding their own casualties, the same source said "During the wartime, 70 percent of the forces of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) were dispatched to Korea as the Chinese People's Volunteers (accumulated to 2.97 million), along with more than 600,000 civil workers. The Chinese People's Volunteers suffered 148,000 deaths altogether, among which 114,000 died in combats, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized, 13,000 died from diseases; and 380,000 were wounded. There were also 29,000 missing, including 21,400 POWs, of whom 14,000 were sent to Taiwan, 7,110 were repatriated." This same source concluded with these numbers for North Korean casualties, "The Korean People's Army had 290,000 casualties and 90,000 POWs. There was a large number of civilian deaths in the northern part of Korea, but no accurate figures were available."[44]
The casulties of the various UN forces are listed in the infobox, along with their estimates of Chinese and North Korean forces."
That entire section is very poor and includes multiple misspelled words, among other errors. Where is the "390,000 eliminated" from the U.S. coming from? What source do they have other than North Korea (reputable source right?). All Western historians agree that the American casualties in the Korean war were no more than 40,000.
Here's a link: http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html
The entire Korean War section on casualties (see how I spelled it correctly?) needs to be rewritten by someone that isn't a North Korean propagandist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.101.142 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I wrote that section, and I am far from being a NK propagandist. Most of the typos (in case I did misspell something), are probably within quotes, which mean that they were copied verbatim from the official transcript of a statement from the Chinese embassy in New York. The section should be referenced, with a link to the web site that contains the official statement.
- After much arguing with one certain individual who insisted those numbers were far more accurate than the American numbers, consensus was finally reached to include that section within the article (but NOT in the infobox), so that the Chinese estimation could be seen by all. This way, what most people feel are the most accurate numbers appear in the infobox, but the reader can guage for themselves as they read the article what another source thinks the numbers are.
- So, with this brief history of the section out of the way, please re-read the section again. If you can see a better way to rewrite it, feel free, but remember information must be sourced, and what is within quotes needs to remain as the original source states it. wbfergus Talk 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
NPOV
Could someone please fix the section on nuclear weapon threats? I saw quite a few weasel words, and the main focus of the paragraph is that Truman accidentally threatened using nukes. Crisco 1492 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you read above, in the "Nuclear weapons section", you'll see they're very much engaged in attempting to fix the problems with that section of the article. Parsecboy 13:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry. I just noticed that after posting my comment. Crisco 1492 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite
I don't think that we should approach this article for long, even for a rewrite (this is response for Wberfugus' request) until we have ton of more editors interested in Korea-related topics. It's my opinion that about 1/10 editors signed up for WikiProject Korea are sock puppets & about 8/10 editors have lost interest in Wikipedia. And then the remaining 1/10 can't do anything - most of the work groups are inactive except for maybe food & even that is done by ppl not in the cuisine work group. Currently, I'm trying to push Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) to become a featured article, but user:Good friend100 seems to dislike my edits & he doesn't reply to my suggestions so I'm not quite sure what I want to do. I could begin contributing to this article, but I don't want to invest my time if it'd become a waste (as were several of my experiences in contributing). (Wikimachine 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
- Feel free. Now that there is a new fiscal year, my focus needs to shift back to real life again. I have a bunch of work to get done now that I have another set of billable hours to charge against, so I won't be able to spend as much time on here as I was for at least a few more months. Also, I finally found my copy of Singlaub's "Hazardous Duty" yesterday and took a quick glance through it, and there's a things I'd like to add from it, primarily how the CIA knew abouth the NK buildup prior to the invasion, but MacArthur and therefore Army Intelligence, discredited the information as unreliable, etc. I don't think there is anything currently in the article about that, so if you run across place for it, let me know. Or, I could include the relevant parts here, and you can then re-edit appropriately for the article. Either way. wbfergus Talk 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Dead Body of A Chinese Man, Bloody
I am very uncomfortable about the bloody picture of the dead Chinese man. A soldier is human first, then he is a Chinese man, then he was a soldier. The bloody picture shows his face clearly, with his chopped legs.
He should be not responsible for the justice of the war, regardless who was right and who was wrong. It is a shame that recently Inter-Korean Summit already formally ended their war in Oct 2007, by visiting each other and this bloody picture is still shown here in this article.
The picture is real, but real things like adult contents and violent scene are still not good for all of us, especially for Children who are reading this article. I have seen more bloody move such as the Pathfinder (2007 film), in which the indigenous people in North America were bloodily killed by Vikings, but that is an 18+ movie. I am not a child and I still feel upset, not only because I am a Chinese, more important I am trying to be keep my dignity as a human.
As a considerate member of Wikepedia, I would suggest to delete this bloody picture. I am aware of the fact that the sever of Wikipedia is in US, not in UN, nor in China. But we are all humans; I did not see a bloody body with clear face from US soldier in this article (I am sure someone died and the pictures are available). Unless if there is a USA dead body added to this article, I strongly suggest to delete this picture, for the dignity of a dead person, although we don’t even know his name.Dongwenliang 04:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about this picture, which turne out keep. WP:CENSORED applies, sorry.Kfc1864 talk my edits 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- And acually, His legs are not chopped.Kfc1864 talk my edits 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is not the point. The point is the clear face with a bloody dead body. It is seems to me injuries can be found around his mouth. Can you tell me where is the old disccusion?Dongwenliang 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- And acually, His legs are not chopped.Kfc1864 talk my edits 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone knows war is not pretty, except the one who inserted this image in this article. Above I mentioned that it is a real picture, the authenticity of the picture is not the reason the picture should stay. Violence, rape, murder happens everyday somewhere on our earth, those are also not pretty but true, can that be the reason this picture should stay?
Violence can be taught. That is why we should hide these explicit atrocity pictures and sex explicit pictures from Children, even from all the person who are with dignity. I noticed the picture of US soldier, his face is down and his identity is not shown, without the word beneath, you can not even tell if he is an US soldier or not. Similar picture should be used to replace the Chinese picture. I hate to say this but it seems that in your eyes we are not human. Dongwenliang 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Find a better picture, and will be considered for possible replacement. As it is, please refer to a post above regarding censorship. wbfergus Talk 21:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The point remains that Wikipedia is not censored, for any reason. The picture adds content to the article, and for that reason, it should remain here. Likewise, Wikipedia is not about "We have one picture of a dead Chinese soldier, so we have to have a picture of a dead American to even it out". If there is a usable picture, it should be added to a relevant article, provided the article isn't already too full of images in the first place. Parsecboy 22:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored: there are two most important meanings for it. Firstly it is for scientific reasons, for example, the picture of a genital could be shown for the purpose of the article talking about sex organs (Anyway this does not fall into porn). Secondly, every reader can edit or upload a picture without getting approval in advance, and the administrators cannot instantly delete the inappropriate pictures or contents. That is the way why Wikipedia is not censored.
- So it does not mean you can post any porn or bloody pictures like this one. It is also so offensive and I am really very upset, especially the face of the soldier is clearly shown.
- The most important spirit of Wikipedia, is the neutral point view. I do not understand a picture of high resolution of a bloody dead Chinese man with clear face identity, compare with a picture of back of an US soldier, comply with the neutral point view of this article. I wish you can understand and respect others. Dongwenliang 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- What is non neutral about this image? How is it "biased" to show a dead Chinese soldier on his back, and a dead American on his front? A dead soldier is a dead soldier. If you want to find a picture of a dead American lying on his back, go right ahead. As to your interpretation of WP:CENSOR, perhaps you should read the first line.
- Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
- Take note that no one is complaining about the picture of the dead American. Parsecboy 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course no complain. If the Chinese soldier' face is not shown, why would I bother to complain? People complain because they feel unfair. The bias is, the dead American soldier is shown with dignity and the Chinese soldier is not, the fact is not that complicated at all. Dongwenliang 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then go find a picture of a dead American lying on his back. In my, and the majority of other editors here who have discussed this issue before, a corpse is a corpse is a corpse. This is also not complicated. Parsecboy 23:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the dignity stuffs. Who cares? (Wikimachine 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC))
- At least I care. I am not going to find a bloody picture of USA soldier lying on his back. Lying on the back or not, is not the problem. The problme is his clear face. I will also not try to find an US soldier with a clear face. Because I respect everyone, regardless race and color. However I may find a better picture to replace the Chinese picture without his clear face and identity being shown. Do you know why dead people are always shown with covered body or face? I wish he can die with dignity, even after more than 50 years Dongwenliang 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone who died in combat died with dignity. If you can find more pictures of Chinese soldiers, I encourage you to do so. China is seriously under-represented in this article. Parsecboy 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the positions of the bodies are relevant, and acceptable. The position of the American body shows the manner in which he was killed ie. bound and executed - and the body of the Chinese dude that shows his face puts a human and personal touch to the whole article. Dignity is important, however to remove all controversial images from Wikipedia in order to preserve dignity is not what Wikipedia is about. Besides in the views of some, dying while fighting for your country is very dignified.Sennen goroshi 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was blocked from editing yesterday, because of open proxy(?). It is true that it is hard to die in dignity in Korea War, for both Chinese and US soldiers, I never denied that. The problem is the editor shown them with bias, one with clear identity and one is not. This is unfair.Dongwenliang 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the positions of the bodies are relevant, and acceptable. The position of the American body shows the manner in which he was killed ie. bound and executed - and the body of the Chinese dude that shows his face puts a human and personal touch to the whole article. Dignity is important, however to remove all controversial images from Wikipedia in order to preserve dignity is not what Wikipedia is about. Besides in the views of some, dying while fighting for your country is very dignified.Sennen goroshi 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. In the previous discussions on this image, the majority of the editors (presumably mostly white males in their 20s) claimed that the image is neutral and decline to change it, on the ground that it is a Wikipedia featured image, which was almost certainly voted again by the same demographic group of people. Despite all these, they actually believe this should be a "featured" article. What an irony. It is an even bigger irony that they claim "communism reeducation" is a crime against POW. In other words, the preaching of the creed of a dead white man to the communist POWs is the real salvation. And, look at the amazing results of the powerful American Air force, their big bombs can break the legs of your poor Chinese solider. And, look at the crimes committed by the Chinese, they even killed an American POW. Oh, by the way, the US Army is not only mighty, it is also really a big family, because the black and white American solders were fighting side by side in the advertisement on this site.
And besides, the people from mainland China have been brain-washed, they cannot even think independently, so their opinions are highly biased. Only the people in the western world, (oh I am sorry, I should say the free world), can think objectively and neutrally, even though they have been taught by their media 24/7 that the communist China is evil. Information from the communist governments are simply propaganda. Only the documents provided by the US government, (including the Bush administration, I guess), are the facts. Guess whose brain-wash is more successful?
Oh, yes. Welcome to the Wikipedia.
Yours truly, (Postdoc 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
- Let's assume a little good faith here. I for one had nothing to do with the image in question's promotion to featured image status. Kfc1864 is a Korean living in Soeul. Wikimachine is also Korean. Wbfergus served in the US Army, stationed at the JSA in the mid-late '70s. I'm the only "white male in his 20s". As for the rest of your rant, what is your point? Take your anti-American vitriol somewhere else. Oh, and sign your posts. Four tildes (~~~~). Parsecboy 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the neutrality of the images is fine, if you read about the Korean war it's pretty obvious that there was a high human death toll compared to other conflicts of a similar length (almost as many or similar to Vietnam war), to show some human bodies isn't offensive, consider American civil war photography, it became famous in its own right. Atomsgive 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- assume a little good faith is a two way job. Before you asking others why they did not assume a little good faith toward you, check if your point is really neutral first. I really don’t understand why it is so difficult to put your feet in others shoes. There are so many people they can only, and always think in one way. That is why selfish, greed, intolerances, hatred and war are flourishing everywhere. Dongwenliang 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- How was I failing to AGF? By stating that only one editor involved here actually is in the demographic that supposedly voted to promote the image to featured status (and that I was in no way involved in said promotion)? For calling what Postdoc stated above an anti-American rant? It's a dead soldier. He's dead. He doesn't care about this alleged affront to his dignity. Get over it. Parsecboy 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ones who voted a bloody picture as a “featured” image, did not assume good faith in the first place, they have no faith in world peace, in all human beings, in our children even in himself at all. I am telling you death threatening will never work, especially to civilized people. The only thing works is love. An image like this has no effects of threatening anybody at all, it promote hatred really well instead. By supporting to show a Chinese dead soldier clearly with his face identity (one can tell he is Asian, one can tell his name if he knows him) while only show an US soldier with his back (we don’t even know if he was a Caucasian or not), where is your neutral point of view and good faith? Your point reminds me of some most absurd view points, such as “In the name of God, we kill”, or “I despise two kind of person, one is racist, another is black”, these all claim they strongly believe in God and thus consider themselves have a good faith. This is totally ridiculous Dongwenliang 21:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get your point, even if the image wasn't on wikipedia, it has been widely published before so removing it here would be pointless since this dead Chinese soldier has received as much publicity as he is going to receive over the past 50+ years. The media will still publish war causality images, remember the footage of the S Vietnamese policeman executing a vietcong - in fact censoring war causality images is helps sanitize wars, that's why the Bush administration banned photos of even flag covered caskets of dead American military personnel (in past wars they were considered patriotic images...)
- The ones who voted a bloody picture as a “featured” image, did not assume good faith in the first place, they have no faith in world peace, in all human beings, in our children even in himself at all. I am telling you death threatening will never work, especially to civilized people. The only thing works is love. An image like this has no effects of threatening anybody at all, it promote hatred really well instead. By supporting to show a Chinese dead soldier clearly with his face identity (one can tell he is Asian, one can tell his name if he knows him) while only show an US soldier with his back (we don’t even know if he was a Caucasian or not), where is your neutral point of view and good faith? Your point reminds me of some most absurd view points, such as “In the name of God, we kill”, or “I despise two kind of person, one is racist, another is black”, these all claim they strongly believe in God and thus consider themselves have a good faith. This is totally ridiculous Dongwenliang 21:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- How was I failing to AGF? By stating that only one editor involved here actually is in the demographic that supposedly voted to promote the image to featured status (and that I was in no way involved in said promotion)? For calling what Postdoc stated above an anti-American rant? It's a dead soldier. He's dead. He doesn't care about this alleged affront to his dignity. Get over it. Parsecboy 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- if anything the Chinese soldier is portrayed in better than the dead American in the article, because the Chinese soldier died in combat whereas the US soldier was apparently the victim of a war crime, and I don't think the race of the soldiers in question really matters. Atomsgive 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- What you said is Exactly right. I fully agree and realized the photo could be on the other websites, maybe an US National Defense site, CIA site or even CNN. But do these website or media claim they are promoting the neutrality of viewpoints? Do they claim they are promoting "Assume Good Faith" like Wikipedia does? There are also plenty photos of porn and violence on other websites, likewise, these sites of course are not censored too. Shall this be the reason Wikipedia should also publish porn and violent photos? Dongwenliang 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)Get over it. If you don't like it, either don't read the article or find a suitable replacement. The picture has occasionally been the subject of one person 'outrage' numerous times, and the picture is still here. Consensus seems to be to keep it, as whenever somebody deleted it, it was reverted back. Just like porn sites, if you don't like what you see there, don't go there. It's really kind of simple. And, as stated above, the dead Chinese soldier is actually portrayed better than the dead American soldier. Per Chinese and Japanese cultures, dying in combat is considered much more honorable than surrender or capture, hence the Chinese soldier would be regarded in those cultures as being a more honorable death than the American soldier who was captured and subsequently executed. So, if that person has any relatives or friends who can identify him, then they would at least know he died honorably. This merely shows that he did not die a dishonorable death or disgrace his family. wbfergus Talk 13:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I had enough discussion too and I removed both pictures until I find one for replacement. “The picture has occasionally been the subject of one person 'outrage' numerous times ” right indicates that this is unaceptable and inappropirate. It is glad to know this topic had been discussed many times so we all knew the prolem. If the dead body with clear identification is an honor in Japan or Korea, upload a dead Korean body with clear face. Why we should all follow Japan and Korea’s culture while the dead soldier was not Japanese nor Korean? Where is your logic? Some tribes in the Amozon forest are cannibals, should we all follow them and eat each other??Dongwenliang 17:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- What a hypocrisy. Based on the 30 most recent unique users that have made changes to the article, only "Dongweliang" give consideration to the other side of the war. Yet, his opinion is rejected because of "no consensus". Why does this remind me of the all-white jury in the Jena6 case? Anyone else? If something is insulating, only the victims can explain. Not the other way around. If people agree that wikipedia is just as good a porn site, then who cares? And by the way, many these users are from the US and are still going to schools. Postdoc 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Postdoc for your support. And we all know the golden rule of Avoid “conflict of interests”. Although this rule may not be adopted by Wikipedia yet, but for the reason of “Assume Good Faith”, The Korea War happened between so called UN (US Army was the major force) and Communism Korea (Chinese Army was the major force). We all knew in the courthouse, if someone who is both a plaintiff (or defendant) and a relative of the judge, can we expect from the judge for a fair result? So when this image was featured, or when we discuss the removing from article, the users from US army or South Korea Army should not participate. This case, is obviously a “conflict of interests” Parsecboy is an user from US military. I can fully understand that he has lots of reasons to be pround being in the US Army and protecting his people. (He should not be pround of invading other countres though). But by opposing remove this bloody image, which was a conflict between US Army and China, his viewspoints should be considered did not avoiding the “Confict of interests.” Dongwenliang 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And, I am Chinese and I never know we have a culture of being pride to show dead body with identity. That is not my culture. I think no culture in the world likes that, the baseline is, we are all humans.Dongwenliang 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how my being in the US Army is any more a conflict of interest than you being Chinese. What vested interest do I have in keeping the image of a dead Chinese soldier on this page? What do I get out of it? You should stop making bad faith assertions about other editors. So much for all of your "golden rule" talk. Parsecboy 21:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who said the Chinese (or any culture) takes "pride to show dead body with identity"? Quit having a tizzy and re-read what has been stated before. wbfergus Talk 10:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, I am Chinese and I am not from PLA. You are an American and from US Force. Do you know what are the differences between civilians and military?
- What my job is makes no difference. I am an American, who tends to see from the American perspective, you are a Chinese, who tends to see from the Chinese perspective, nothing more. Stop accusing me of bad faith. Parsecboy 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- webfergus, did you change your comments about culture from Korea and Japan to China and Japan? The first time I saw it was the former. I found it is hard to discuss with you if you are dishonest and changed your discussions after I replied them. I never commented Korea and Japan culture since I think I have less understanding of Japan and Korea culture than Japanese and Korean, I wander how you could know Chinese culture better than myself. And please don't forget, showing a dead body with clear identity, is right what we are talking about here.Dongwenliang 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Check the edit history of this page. I did not change it. So, once again you are mistaken. Why don't you go find another article to be a disruptive editor on? If you don't like this article, don't read it. You are obviously not interested in making this article better, you are only disrupting it. wbfergus Talk 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why insulting all the Chinese is better for this article, and why removing the insulting image is disruptive. Anyway we Chinese should know our culture better than you, that is my point. And how could I know if I like it or not before I read it?Dongwenliang 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is showing a picture of a dead Chinese soldier insulting all Chinese people? I think you're overreacting. John Smith's 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You may show a dead man without problem, but show a dead man with clear face identity, is a threatenning and an insulting. I discussed this clearly on the previous paragraph. I am not sure why there are so many China haters. Anyway, only the people feel offensive could tell. And it is not only myself, doesn't the countless discussions in achieves indicate you something? Not so many Chinese visit this site all object it, many of us may not speak English, you can image how we will react if the people in China are out of intenet blocking.Dongwenliang 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- And how could I know if I like it or not before I read it? How would you know if you liked a porn site (or any web site) until after you visited it? What would you do if you didn't like it? Would you keep going back, or would you not go there again? wbfergus Talk 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You always compare Wikipedia with a porn site. How Wekipedia is comparable with porn site?? Wiki is not a porn site. Dongwenliang 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is showing a picture of a dead Chinese soldier insulting all Chinese people? I think you're overreacting. John Smith's 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why insulting all the Chinese is better for this article, and why removing the insulting image is disruptive. Anyway we Chinese should know our culture better than you, that is my point. And how could I know if I like it or not before I read it?Dongwenliang 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Check the edit history of this page. I did not change it. So, once again you are mistaken. Why don't you go find another article to be a disruptive editor on? If you don't like this article, don't read it. You are obviously not interested in making this article better, you are only disrupting it. wbfergus Talk 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking through this discussion, it looks to me that you were the first person to bring up the porn site analogy, so everybody has just been following your lead, probably under the assumption that there is probably at least one porn site out there would each of us could probably find offensive in our own way. It then becomes dependent on us to decide if we'd visit that site again. wbfergus Talk 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly I don't visit porn site very often but I never found any images on porn sites are offensive. I don't think any porn sites targets a certain group of people in a negtive way like this war image here does. Dongwenliang 20:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking through this discussion, it looks to me that you were the first person to bring up the porn site analogy, so everybody has just been following your lead, probably under the assumption that there is probably at least one porn site out there would each of us could probably find offensive in our own way. It then becomes dependent on us to decide if we'd visit that site again. wbfergus Talk 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you don't think images on porn sites should be censored at all? What about a woman who feels degraded and offended by them? Does she have a right to remove those images, such that you or anyone else who is not offended, cannot see them? Parsecboy 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No I think the censoreship of a porn site, the victim should not be an individual adult, for example, you must be at lease 18 to review those sites, that is how and why the porn sites are censored. Adult only, that is it, and most important, they are a group of people below the age of 18. We can exlclude the porn pictures from Children, you may exclude this bloody image with clear face from all Chinese too. Dongwenliang 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously you must not have any teenagers or know very little about computers. I have a teenager and my current profession is in computers. It is impossible to block all porn sites, even most of them, from somebody, even those who don't want to visit them. There are many out there that skirt the things blocking software looks for, mainly keywords. And for those who are actively seeking those pictures, there's so way to stop it. My son can easily connect to a porn site an simply click a button to say he is 18. That does not prevent him from viewing those pictures. So, since you said you find nothing offensive about porn sites, I guess that means that you find nothing offensive about gay porn sites, bestiality porn sites, porn sites specializing in human excrement (urine and feces), porn sites with midgets or with people with disabilities, porn sites dedicated to violent sex (rape, torture, etc.) and so on, and if you visited one accidentally, you would continue to revisit it. Those are all porn sites; it is not restricted soley to male-female sex. Your argument does not stand up, and surely there must be something in the porn world that you would find offensive, and if you ever accidentally visited, would never visit again. That is the point.
- There are many sites devoted to something, but they may still have something on them that some would consider offensive. Say I visited a web site about "Entertainment". From there I could probably find something related to Britney Spears, be offended, and then decide on my own never to visit that site again. Many other people however would not be offended by that, and continue revisting the site. There is no reason the site should take my objection (and maybe a couple other people) and decide to never carry anything related to Britney Spears again, when there are so many other people who didn't find it offensive. Even staying soley within the realm of Wikipedia, there is a lot of material here that many people from various backgrounds find offensive. I'm positive there is much content on here that strict Muslims would find offensive. I know there is much content on here on Scientologists find offensive. The examples go on and on. Just because somebody finds something offensive, does not mean it should be deleted, unless it does not meet Wikipedia standards, violates laws (like copyright), or generates such widespread disapproval from the entire Wikipedia community to warrant such removal. I'm sorry, but you, Postdoc, and Ksyrie alone do not represent the entire Wikipedia community. There is also no policy that this article has to match whatever is contained in a different language's Wikipedia. I imagine there is a Chinese version that does not include the picture, and the article content is quite different from what is included here. wbfergus Talk 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- No I think the censoreship of a porn site, the victim should not be an individual adult, for example, you must be at lease 18 to review those sites, that is how and why the porn sites are censored. Adult only, that is it, and most important, they are a group of people below the age of 18. We can exlclude the porn pictures from Children, you may exclude this bloody image with clear face from all Chinese too. Dongwenliang 02:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- All the sites and films you are talking about, has an warning, such as adult only, 18+ only, etc. If you can add a warning such as "This article/picture is offensive to Chinese people, please click leave botton if you don't want read it". Both you and Parsecboy always said "if you don't like it, don't see it". The problem is, how would I know I will be offended without reading it or without a warning sign? I am sure I will not read it if I saw a warning like above mentioned. Even I did, I would not make a complain. Dongwenliang 16:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Parsecboy 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
People here are not taking this to a racist level. Nobody here has any anti-Chinese sentiment here, and if they do, they shouldn't be here. Just add an image of a dead american soldier on the page. And, assume good faith on your part. People don't add an image of a dead chinese solider to insult Chinese soldiers. Its just part of the article. Good friend100 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure if you read all the discussions above or not. There is already a dead US soldier in the article. I said so many times that it is not the dead soldier, it is the way the editor select/show the bloody picture with clear identity. If you assume good faith in the first place, you should consider the opinion from some Chinese editors since the dead one with clear face is a Chinese. Who is supposed to decide if it is an insult or not? Who supposed to consider taking this into a racist level or not? If you read the achieves, this issue had been brought up so many times, you may need to understand why so many people are “overreact” so frequently. Thanks for your discussion. Dongwenliang 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The anti-China and anti-North Korean tone is quite obvious in this article, due to the editing community of this article (mainly from the US and partly from South Korea). The point is that some people claim that they want to remove this kind of "systematic bias" from this article, while in reality these "assertive" people refuse to budge from their "original" positions. "Dongwenliang"'s arguments are met with such "good faithed" words like "Who cares?", "Get over it", "Over-react", "disruptive", "case closed", etc. In fact, looking through the editing histories of some users here, their attitudes to mainland China and North Korea are quite obvious. Yes, statistics really speak for themselves. Claiming neutral is one thing, doing it is another thing. Isn't it? Postdoc 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dongwenliang, and anyone else who objects to images of war dead do need to get over it. Wikipedia quite clearly states that it is NOT censored, for any reason, in any way. If something strikes you as offensive, stop looking at it. No one is forcing you to stay here and stare at an image that you find objectionable. It's not anti-China or anti-North Korea; it's anti-censorship. I'm sure plenty of Muslims are upset that this image is on Wikipedia, however, it remains on several pages. The point is, you cannot force your opinions on other people, no matter how seemingly justified you think you are. Parsecboy 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, I think you should go away, please read this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Dongwenliang 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should read that article first. The article deals with things such as self-promotion, writing your own autobiography, writing about close friends or clients, or if you work for a company, and you're trying to improve its image. Not "You've been in the US Army, so you're not allowed to discuss articles related to it." Parsecboy 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Famous message
"Following Colonel Harrison Thyng’s famous message to the Pentagon, the 51st FIW reinforced the beleaguered 4th in December 1951" - as a UK citizen I have no idea what this famous message might be. Could this be rewritten to be clear to a wider audience? Tim Vickers 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
US estimated numbers
The total death in the US estimates of Chinese is over 400,000. The total wounded is 486,000. So if you add them together, it is 886,000+. This number even larger than the total Chinese strength of 780,000 which is all agreed. We now can see how absurd these US estimations are. Nobody returned home? Even so it should be right 780,000. Dongwenliang 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Check your facts. The estimates presented are for both Chinese and North Korean casualties. wbfergus Talk 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, read the infobox completely. The 780,000 was the peak strength, not the overall number of soldiers involved, which numbered over 2 million for the Chinese PVA. Parsecboy 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, a soldier who has been wounded multiple times badly enough to be removed from action before being sent back into the fighting can be counted as multiple casualites. I believe that the ANZAC forces wracked up a casualty rate greater than 100 percent in the Gallipoli campaign in this way. --Jfruh (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I only see the 780,000 is under "Strength". You probably need to add a note to make your points logic. Or change it to "Peak Strength". Dongwenliang 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, a soldier who has been wounded multiple times badly enough to be removed from action before being sent back into the fighting can be counted as multiple casualites. I believe that the ANZAC forces wracked up a casualty rate greater than 100 percent in the Gallipoli campaign in this way. --Jfruh (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read the section of the box carefully; it already explains it.Parsecboy 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese offical number of death is about 140,000. I found another source that shown break-down number from each provinces of PVA. Here: http://www.cass.net.cn/zhuanti/y_kmyc/tupian_show/7/keview236-01.jpg Beijing:1483, Fujian:982, Tianjin:977, Henan:10673, Hebei: 10155, Hubei:5167, Shanxi:5835, Hunan:10687, Inner Mongolia: 1683, Guangdong:3186, Liaoning:13374, Guangxi:2915, Jilin:18260, Shan'xi:2802, Heilongjiang:8222, Ningxia:461, Shandong: 19685, Gansu: 1041, Shanghai:1634, Qnghai:48, Jiangsu:7268, Xinjiang:61, Anhui: 4151, Sichuan:30789, ZHejiang: 3732, Guizhou: 2799, Jiangxi: 2162, Yunnan: 1482. THe Hainan province was not established yet, and I did not find Tibet. I added toal number to about 170,000.Dongwenliang 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not count the misssing number. If you add 148,000 with 29,000, the total is 170,000. Dongwenliang 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
A reminder to all editors
Please stop edit warring. I just checked the edit history and theres a long string of edit warring. WP:3RR will remain in effect and if you keep this up, somebody will have to file a report. Good friend100 19:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a first (and required) step in getting Administrator sanctions, if the edit warring continues, below is an official RfC. wbfergus Talk 19:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh good! I keep forgetting about these simple resolutions. Seems to be getting a problem for me since I keep eyeing the banhammer. Poor, poor, AGF. Good friend100 19:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Request for comment
Template:RFChist Requesting comment on the following questions: (copied from the picture page itself):
- Should the picture of the dead Chinese soldier stay in the article?
- Is it appropriate to perform a revert to a state in time that negates around 350-400 subsequent edits?
- 1. Yes, agreed with Wbfergus.
- 2. No, it is not acceptable to revert several months worth of edits. Parsecboy 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1. Yes, no reason to hide anything, but I would ask if this particular picture has any significance? Has it been used elsewhere, or (like the picture of Baldomero Lopez climbing the seawall) does it have degree of notability in a of itself.
- 2. Usually no, unless it is the most effective way back to an NPOV version, should never be done unilateraly. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- 1. No, this is major point of bias.
- 2. Usually no, unless it is to reverse unfounded and unilateral changes slipped at the first place and unless it can greatly improves the quality of the article. Postdoc 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)