Talk:Korean War

Commanders

Please add the Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett to the list of commanders. As a secretary of defense he was obviously very heavily involved as he is the head of the executive department of the US armed forces (his article even says he directed the Korean war with a source to back the claim up). Secretary of defense before him who was involved with the war for an even shorter amount of time is already mentioned. Rombetriton (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, from what I see some people claim that commanders should be mentioned in the article but more than half of the commanders in the info box (such as Mark W. Clark, etc) aren't so if they can be added then I don't see why the actual head of the US military can't be. Rombetriton (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. I will get around to reviewing the commanders. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Frankly the commander list (and the infobox in general) has suffered from serious bloat. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have culled the list of commanders based on those supported by the body of the article. However, the allies still have ten in the list while the recommendation per the template doc is seven. Those left may not be the most appropriate (per the body of the article and some only have what amounts to a passing mention - ie it is arguable as to whether the article is evidencing that the were key or significant leaders/commanders. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• HawkNightingale175, your edit here would readd Clark and a passing mention you added that he took over command from Ridgway. There is also a passing mention of Slyusarev that he made a report. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is for key facts from the article and less is better. The template doc tells us to limit commanders to about seven per side, which is exceeded. These passing mentions do not evidence that they were key or significant commanders compared with others. Your view that they should be added is inconsistent with P&G and what the article tells us. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  The "seven commanders" thing appears to be a recommendation for those who are new to creating/editing and not an absolute rule that has to be adhered to by all editors regardless of how many edits they have made. There is nothing in there that states that listing more than seven is explicitly forbidden. The infobox is summarizing the war and Clark, Slyusarev were notable commanders. Clark was the commander of UN forces during the last year of the war, while Slyusarev was the highest ranking Soviet commander that directly participated in the war. All of that information is truthful. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  Guidance is rarely written in a prescriptive way. That does not mean it should be ignored. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I do not believe that I was ignoring any rules, as I am a longstanding editor who has been editing on this site for many years and do not need to follow guides designed for users who are new to editing. None of the information I added is biased or factually inaccurate, and as such, adheres to site policy. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are just making up what you would like site policy to say. To be blunt: stop wasting our time and yours if you can't even be bothered to look at what it actually says. Remsense ‥ 论 02:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

USSR as a belligerent?

There is an inconsistency in our content. The infobox here lists USSR as a belligerent, whereas the Soviet Union in the Korean War article opens with an unreferenced statement that "Though not officially a belligerent during the Korean War (1950–1953), the Soviet Union " ...

Something needs to be fixed. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

USSR didn't claim to be a belligerent, but the Soviet Union in the Korean War makes it very clear that they were, so the Infobox on the Korean war page is correct to list them. 08:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to clean up the infobox generally. Remsense ‥ 论 09:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Good man!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Change the official Chinese name of the war

The current Chinese name that is given is given very informally and is not a very good translation. Even the citation itself gives a name more similar to the proposed change. Thus I propose to change the translation of the Chinese name given in the "names" section. Template:Textdiff (alternatively, "War to Resist America and Aid Korea" is acceptable too.) 129.97.124.127 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Pdone: In the source, it is given "Great Movement to Resist America and Assist Korea". Warriorglance(talk to me) 07:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possible the article is describing another (topic-related) phenomenon, but the translation of "抗美援朝战争" is NOT "Great Movement to Resist America and Assist Korea", but rather "War to Resist America and Aid Korea" (assist and aid are probably interchangeable here). I do not think translations fall under independent research (but of course, correct me if I am wrong), so this should be rectified. 129.97.124.127 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You may be correct in the translation, I dont know. But, We still have to follow what is given in the source in this case. If you can produce other sources that say "war", I'll be happy to change it. Cheers, Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The source given in the article is this. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Virtually all of Korea's cities?

The article claims that "...virtually all of Korea's major cities were destroyed." However, the source (at least the two page preview available) only claims that every North Korean city and Seoul were destroyed. Is this an oversight? 75.185.176.221 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization on the port/Port of Pusan

Apologies for the poor navigation as this request is being made on mobile, but at one point, a location is named the 'port of Pusan' where it should be labelled as 'Port of Busan'. This should be changed unless the link the text redirects to is otherwise incorrect. AT.folf (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed my spelling error. I meant to say 'Port of Pusan' as the capitalization is incorrect. The link also appears wrong/off. AT.folf (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Aston305 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Not consistently capped in sources (see here and [1]). Not something we should cap per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You are certainly correct about not all sources capitalizing it, yet the port is a proper noun as it relates to one unique place. Surely wouldn't that mean it needs to be capitalized? Sorry if I'm wrong. AT.folf (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with AT.folf, it is not 'a port in Pusan' it is 'THE Port of Pusan' Aston305 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What you think as an editor is not how WP determines caps per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Would you be able to direct me to the part of said page? I read through it earlier and again came to the conclusion that it should be capitalized.

Sorry for all of this, but thank you. AT.folf (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

From MOS:CAPS:

"Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements: Japan, Mount Everest, Gulf of Tonkin."

I'm not sure what part of the MOS you're looking at?

Aston305 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

See the general advice in the lead. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) as to whether a class descriptor (eg port) should be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you provide me a direct quotation as I'm still unable to find what you're trying to explain. I have an example here of how a location is capitalized on the page for the Bay of Pigs. The Bay is not a port but it should carry the same rules and capitalization due to it being a proper noun/place and not just one of many bays with a link to pigs.

I am sorry if this is insufficient or misleading but I'm finding it hard to understand why this port should not be capitalized - thank you for staying in contact. AT.folf (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Port is a category noun while Busan is a proper noun. Specificity of referent is a property of a proper noun|name but it is not a defining property since specificity is also achieved through the definite article (the). While it is common for us to capitalise descriptors in name phrases of places, eg Gulf of tonkin [2], the descriptor is not always capped in sources - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names#Names of classes. Essentially, we defer to the general guidance at MOS:CAPS regarding the capitalisation of port here and it is far from consistently capitalised in sources - ie we don't cap it. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation, I now understand. So, should one just look for the general trend of usage to determine capitalization in these cases? Thank you. AT.folf (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though the threshold for caps on WP (per MOS:CAPS) is quite high - ie a term needs to be consistently capped in sources before we follow suit. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

contributing countries to the UN forces

I really hope to see all the countries involved in the Korean War at a glance. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Which nations that were combatants do we leave out (sourced)? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are other countries being removed from the list? Hanyang.study (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced additions? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Its a list with many verifiable sources https://theme.archives.go.kr/next/unKorea/warCondition.do Hanyang.study (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Ahh I see, the reason is it is a huge list, better handled as a list, and not in the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes thats what i was doing. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a huge list, so it is better to put the list in the infobox Hanyang.study (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It is sourced and clear information. It is huge list. But there is no reason to delete it. We need to see all the countries involved. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It will clutter the infobox, alas, what is the criteria for inclusion ? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen the participant countries handled in this way on other war pages. What makes you think it will clutter the infobox? Hanyang.study (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

the countries that sent troops to the war. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

World War II, time for othres to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

OK. But this is not world war. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Technically UN forces include 15 more countries. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Something that many people misunderstand is that the U.S. military didn’t participate in the war as just the U.S. forces, but as part of the United Nations forces. Yet countries like the UK, Turkey, and Canada, which each sent tens of thousands of troops, are excluded from the list. Hanyang.study (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• There are two key points. Firstly, everything that appears in the infobox must be sourced and supported by the body of the article per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:VER and the list you add is not. Just because you can find sources doesn't resolve this. Secondly, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not a place for detail and less is better. We need to balance the extent of detail and limit the size so that the infobox best serves its intended purpose. Drop-down lists don't work on mobile devices so, this is not a resolution to that issue. However, both the status quo link and the drop-down (on non-mobile devices) get the reader to this detail equally quickly. A final observation is that (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a supplement to the lead and the article should remain complete without the infobox. However, it is way to common for us to see editors attaching a disproportionate emphasis on the infobox and try to write the article in the infobox, leading to unnecessary bloat. It is meant to be a [simple] summary of key facts - not everything. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Cinderella157. Infoboxes should be a quick summary of the most important things, not exhaustive lists. seefooddiet (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  How about using a hide/show feature? You could expand the list only when you want to see the participating countries. Hanyang.study (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Please read what I wrote. It doesn't function on mobile devices so it is not an effective resolution to the issue nor is it otherwise a better resolution than the link. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Cinderella157; a hide/show is unnecessarry. We're not supposed to cram in as much as we can in the infobox. seefooddiet (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Line

The reason for distinguishing North and South Korea from the UN and China with a line is that they were participants in the war, not primary parties to the conflict. I don't know the reason why the line was removed. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the Korean War as a conflict between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War Hanyang.study (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Which specific edit are you referring to? seefooddiet (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

the edits you deleted. The infobox. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

To others reading, it's this one specifically [3]; the user made 6 edits in a row without edit comment on various topics, most of them not in the infobox.

I don't particularly care if a line is there or not, but to my understanding it's not common practice on other pages. E.g. Nigerian Civil War. Anyone else have thoughts on this? seefooddiet (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

These were sourced articles supported by academic researches, and I didn’t realize there were people like you who disagreed. Hanyang.study (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand; I agree that SK/NK are arguably the primary combatants. My concern is of style; is a line to distinguish that common practice elsewhere on Wikipedia? seefooddiet (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It has been displayed this way on the Korean War page for the past several years. Every time I visited the Korean War page, it had been displayed that way. Hanyang.study (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you post a link to a past version of the page that had the line? When was the line removed? Did someone provide a rationale for the removal? These things all matter; just because something was one way in the past doesn't make it ok today. You have to prove that the change is useful. seefooddiet (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

this was 2020 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=934551094 Hanyang.study (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

it was removed by Remsense https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&diff=prev&oldid=1280935260 Hanyang.study (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense Do you have an opinion on the dividing line? seefooddiet (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

why did he/she remove the line? Hanyang.study (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

if you agree with this, can i revert the changes? Hanyang.study (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Please slow down and wait for the discussion to resolve. It is generally assumed that once another party agrees you can revert. No need to make multiple comments; adds volume to the discussion. seefooddiet (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedbacks Hanyang.study (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• While you might know what the line is meant to mean, I doubt that readers will. Infoboxes are unsuited and unsuitable for trying to capture nuance and detail. So, no thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think I also lean towards this as well. A line is a little opaque: I certainly wouldn't have understood the meaning if I didn't read this thread. seefooddiet (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I can't understand why this even became a controversial issue in the first place. Hanyang.study (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  We've explained why we disagree with you, I don't get what there isn't to understand. If you're wondering why you're receiving pushback, it's possibly because you've made like numerous edits to this page without edit comment of varying quality, and have lashed out at multiple people who've disagreed with you. seefooddiet (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  If there is no acquiescence or consent from you guys, I won’t make any edits. However, I can’t understand being obstructed from editing without any motivating reason. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Could you also stop lashing out at others? It's good that you're leaving edit comments now, but can you see why others have decreased trust in you at the moment? Wikipedia is partly based on trust and reputation. When I see edits from users who leave edit comments, engage with others respectfully, and make consistently solid edits, they almost never receive pushback. seefooddiet (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this is something to get upset about. This is nowhere close to lashing out. you're the one lashing out at me. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  You've absorbed nothing that I wrote, and you even actively misinterpreted what another user wrote to be in your favor. Not encouraged with this pattern. If this continues will begin to reach out to admins. seefooddiet (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  You are overreacting and trying to turn this discussion into a fight. I will end the conversation here. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  First, the reason I didn’t leave an edit summary is because I had no idea there were people like you who disagreed. (If I had known, I would have left one.) Second, I’ve never lashed out at you just because we had different opinions. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  You've lashed out at others, not me in particular. seefooddiet (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Please stop. Hanyang.study (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like you're saying you don't care whether I add the line or not. Hanyang.study (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what they said. seefooddiet (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  No, I am saying it shouldn't be there. It serves no useful purpose because the meaning is unclear and it is a distraction. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The term "Reactionarists"

The term "reactionary" is subjective. I think it's more appropriate to use "civilian" instead. Hanyang.study (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"suspected reactionarists " They were not "suspected civilians" . Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

how are you gonna define "reactionarists"? Hanyang.study (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not have to, its what NK's excuse was. Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Then 'civilian' is more appropriate. Hanyang.study (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, as it is an allegation, unless you are saying they were only alleged civilians, are you? Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have (however) changed suspected to alleged, as I am unsure that was NPOV. Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven on this. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

UN v US Flag in Infobox

Is there a specific reason for uses of the US flag v the UN flag in the infobox? I'm inclined to change certain individuals like MacArthur and Ridgeway to the UN flag, along with an addition under strength given that they were commanding a UN force (albeit consisting primarily of United States forces). ExiaMesa (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

While on paper the coalition supporting South Korea was acting under UN authority, in fact military orders came from the governments and armed forces commanders of the member states. The UN assembly had little if any effect on the progress or outcome of the war. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Keep the US flag.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point, but General MacArthur was the supreme commander of the UN coalition with command authority over all UN force in Korea as opposed to individual nations commanding their troops independently. Perhaps UN forces could be added in addition to the infobox? It's certainly not a small number, especially considering the USSR is listed. ExiaMesa (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Dpepends on what it is used for. It was a UN command, but they are not UN soldiers. Officially, they remained in the US military. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Corruption of the Rhee regime?

The Wikipedia article on Syngman Rhee cites Max Hastings (1988) The Korean War (Simon and Schuster, pp. 235-240) as documenting notorious "corruption with everyone in the government from [President Rhee] downwards stealing as much they possibly could from both the public purse and from United States aid." In Rhee's his military, many soldiers went unpaid for months while others existed in name only as their superior officers embezzled their pay and sold arms and other supplies on the black market.

Is this accurate?

If no, what would you recommend as more reliable?

If yes, to what extent might this corruption have contributed to the "Communist insurgency in South Korea (1948–1950)", which preceded the war, and relatively rapid initial defeat of most of the South Korean military, which only stabilized at the Battle of the Pusan Perimeter?

Secondarily, was the Truman administration completely ignorant of the differences in the strengths of the militaries of both North and South Korea? Was he limited by Congress and used understaffing in Korea as an invitation for the Communists to demonstrate they really did want world domination, by force if necessary?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think Rhee's corruption is well-established. But see the Division of Korea article. This describes the communist insurgency in the south as part of a maelstrom of events set in train by the hasty division of Korea in 1945. Corruption isn't even mentioned. But bear in mind that the South and the North regimes only had five years to transition from an occupied zone to separate states to a civil war. I think the Division article captures this quite well. I think the relative strengths of the South and the North militaries is controversial. I think it is well established now that the North had troops that had fought in the Chinese Civil War and the North was also equipped by the USSR with tanks etc and the best Soviet military planning. On the other hand, the South had an army that was largely not battle-hardened and was drawn from Korean troops which had collaborated with the Japanese. And they had no tanks. It is well-documented that the US administration did not see the North's military as a significant foe. This could be clearer in the article. I think there is too much speculation about Truman's thinking. It wasn't that complex. I think it is well-dealt with in this article. Once again, the chronology is important. Germany is divided in 1945. China is taken by the Communists in 1949. Now in 1950 there is war in Korea. Bruce Cumings has established that Truman knew very little about Korea when war broke out. While they have their problems, I think that this article and the Division of Korea article answer your questions.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)