Talk:Korean War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:05, 4 August 2009 editMjcruz (talk \| contribs)130 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:36, 10 August 2009 edit undo161.253.147.34 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			This article needs to be renamed. It was never a war.

	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
	{{FailedGA\|2007-09-11}}		{{FailedGA\|2007-09-11}}

Revision as of 18:36, 10 August 2009

This article needs to be renamed. It was never a war.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korean War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Korean War was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 11, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Korea Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Chinese / European / French / Korean / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	Asian military history task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 25, 2004, September 15, 2004, June 25, 2005, September 15, 2005, June 25, 2006, July 27, 2006, September 15, 2006, and June 25, 2007.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.


Archives

Problems with the lead

The lead of this article continues to imply that the Korean War was the result of an escalation of previous hostilities. No one is denying that there were border skirmishes immediately before the War's outbreak. But an entirely different conflict began with the North's premeditated and sustained invasion of the South on June 25th. This was not escalation. This was a well planned and well executed invasion. The citation given in the lead to support the idea that the War was the result of military escalation, says nothing of the sort. In fact pages 2, 6, and 9 in the given citation argue the common historical opinion that the war was the result of a unilateral invasion by the North.

In the United States the "Korean War" does not refer to the hostilities before the invasion and since the armistice, but only the open warfare between 1950 and 1953. --- Bosoxrock88 27 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxrock88 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

this article lacks a NPOV, needs a tag saying so

This article reads like it was written by some US general. It is not impartial. It clearly has a bias against communism and the North Koreans. Please remove the lock on this article so it can be improved, and add a NPOV box to the top. Some specific problems:

In the second and third sentence of the article, a claim is made that there were negotiations for an all-Korea election, with the clearly slanted view that such negotiations were brought by the US and "ended" by the communists. This is very, very far from the truth; the June 25th border crossing of the North Korean Army did not "end" the negotiations for an election, as separate elections had already taken place, against the wishes of the communists and most of the Korean people (who, by the way, had very little to choose from between Syngman Rhee's rightist extremism and the other right-wing options, since the US occupiers had outlawed all socialist parties). The article should reflect this. The source given as support for the mistaken claim in the article is actually the US military's official version of events! If it were primary documentation from that era, this would be fine material to start with, but this is a revised, propagandistic look back at the war which is buried in its own assumptions about the war's righteousness.

Later, the claim that the americans proposed elections and the soviets simply "opposed" the idea really needs to be expanded upon. The one source cited is not sufficient, since it too is written as by a US official. Adding in the fact that the US manipulated which parties could or could not exist would make the article more NPOV, as it is relevant information which cannot be ignored.

There are examples such as these throughout the article. Much work still needs to be done before this article can be considered NPOV.

The glaring lack of Bruce Cumings' The Origins of the Korean War in the Further Reading section is also quite inexplicable. Was the presence of this book removed by someone who could not handle the facts? The listing of further reading needs to include this book, as it is considered THE authoritative work on the origins of this war. 142.104.143.199 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Cumings' "The Origins of the Korean War" is "considered THE authoritative work on the origins of this war"? Considered by whom? When? Where? Also, there seems to be an underlying assumption that US official histories are ipso facto unreliable. But, can this claim be corroborated by reliable published sources? Kraken7 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If half or more of the citations were from official North Korean agencies, wouldn't you cry foul? The US is no more objective in how it sees the conflict than NK is.

24.69.66.116 (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

are you communist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.9.189 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

would that matter? are you a capitalist? would that matter? 24.69.66.116 (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the first guy has a point. There's lots of little POV problems. Just one example: it says the conflict is also known as "the forgotten war". Really? It certainly isn't forgotten here in Asia, nor in New Zealand and Australia, who sent troops there. The reference goes through to a US military website. In other words, it's known as "the forgotten war" in the U.S., and the U.S. person who wrote that part of the article just assumed that everybody who's gonna read this article is a U.S. citizen. Little things like this are annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed another POV problem, which is that North Korean and Chinese forces are repeatedly refered to as "Communist" forces. For example, one of the captions mentions a "North Korean Communist tank". I think it's POV to apply a political tag like this, especially since the U.N. forces are never referred to as "Capitalist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See the section on films about the Korean War: "North Korea has made many films about the war, mostly by the government supporting forceful, armed reunification of the North and South of Korea. These have been highly propagandized to portray potential war crimes by American or South Korean soldiers while glorifying members of the North Korean military as well as North Korean ideals." This shows such clear, unadulterated bias. How is this sort of thing accepted by the wiki community? To become fair, the same sort of commentary needs to be added to the discussion of Western films about the war, which do also glorify their soldiers, accentuate the other side's atrocities and their own ideals. Or, this commentary should be removed. Either or. I'll also mention that the two citations for the above lines do not in any way relate to or support it. In fact, I'll just go ahead and remove these lines, as it seems to be unquestionably justifiable (biased POV + false citations = good target for editing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.66.116 (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Like in nearly all articles dealing with communism, there are many cases in this article where all communist entities are given the prefix "communist", "state-run", "Stalinist", etc. This is a technique whereby these unnecessary descriptors are used whenever doing so will create a negative connotation, or will create a bias in the readers' mind. Example: in the POWs section, a paragraph describing North Korea's claims begins with, "The state controlled KCNA claims...". In this case, it is not necessary to say 'state controlled', and such tags are always used stategically to discredit all claims by the North Koreans. A more neutral way would be to just state, "The KCNA claims...". Any reader would understand that the competing claims of the US government and the KCNA represent obviously biased sources. The other option is to add adjectives onto all nouns, communist or otherwise, such as 'for-profit' (As in, "according to the for-profit sensationalistic Western media"), 'capitalist' ("The capitalist US government claims..."), etc etc. Unless someone can argue differently, I'll go ahead with such changes. 24.69.66.116 (talk)

Please make no changes without first forming a consensus of editors on this talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

However, nobody responded. How long is one to wait before making changes? It seems to be unopposed. Hence, according to wiki policy, the choice to make the changes is the editor's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.66.116 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Be bold. You aren't obliged to get some kind of consensus if there's a clear problem with an article. Skinny87, you need to explain yourself if you want the article frozen in its current state. ManicParroT (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"The glaring lack of Bruce Cumings' The Origins of the Korean War in the Further Reading section is also quite inexplicable. Was the presence of this book removed by someone who could not handle the facts? The listing of further reading needs to include this book, as it is considered THE authoritative work on the origins of this war."

The opinion of Bruce Cummings does not represent the historical consensus on the Korean War. Cummings is a revisionist, whose conclusions are not referenced or respected. Historical consensus is formed through debate and eventual agreement within the scholarly community. This debate has been occurring for over 50 years. There are plenty of historians who disagree with the mainstream view. However, this article should seek to represent that mainstream view, rather than the opinions of a few outliers. ---- Bosoxrock88 27 July 2009

Was McArthur right?

After all, United Sates lost about 38,000 men and didn't won. If the United States fought why more will, they could win? Was general Douglas McArthur right?Agre22 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

No. You don't win a land war in asia. China could have poured another million troops onto the peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.6.235 (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is completely unrealistic. The supply lines across Manchuria were stretched to the limit as it was, with deprivation-related disease rampant among the Chinese troops. If they "could have" poured another million troops in, why didn't they? Kauffner (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

McArthur was not advocating a land war with conventional means but rather a nuclear war conducted from the air, using the closing events of WWII as a proposed model for winning in Korea. Please see James, D. Clayton (1985), The Years of Macarthur: Volume 3: Triumph and Disaster 1945–1964, 3, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0-395-36004-8, pp.653-655; this reference may also be found in the Misplaced Pages article on Douglas McArthur at #46. David Corliss (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think MacArthur was a very good general, otherwise he wouldn't have lost the battle at Chosin Reservoir. There was plenty of warning that the Chinese were about to strike, even as MacArthur ordered a new general offensive and proclaimed that the troops would be, "home by Christmas." MacArthur did have several good ideas that Truman rejected: Bring in KMT troops from Taiwan, bomb the Chinese supply routes in Manchuria. Gradual U.S. escalation would have given the communists a motive to make peace, something they didn't have after Truman promised not to advance north of the 38th parallel again. On the other hand, MacArthur was a bit of loose cannon, especially with regard to nuclear weapons. He repeatedly asked for authorization to use them at almost every stage of the war, even though his though his understanding of nuclear weapons was limited. He was also insubordinate, so Truman had good reason to fire him. Truman was thinking of moving a nuke to Korea at the time as a psywar tactic and needed someone reliable in command. Kauffner (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on South Korean/civilian casualty

Numbers are changed by great difference. All numbers of casualties are from Ministry of Republic of Korea Armed Forces. The number of KIA and MIA/POW likely to be increase/decrease as South Korea exhume the body of dead. Kadrun (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UN crossed Yalu?

The UN Command’s counter-invasion of North Korea worried the Chinese — correctly presuming that the US, UN, and ROK Army forces would not respect the Yalu River-border between North Korea and China, and would attack the People’s Republic of China as an expedient, opportune extension of the US’s anti-Communist Rollback Policy.

I can't figure out what this refers to. Mao told the Politburo he would intervene at a meeting on Aug. 4, before Inchon or crossing the 38th parallel even came up as issues, never mind crossing the Yalu. The above implies that U.S. forces actually crossed the Yalu, which AFAIK never occurred. After the Chinese invaded Korea, MacArthur and other generals suggested bombing Chinese staging areas Manchuria, but (unfortunately, in my view) Truman never approved. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful with captions

These photos have been edited-and-reverted-and edited again:

These guys are manning a machinegun, not "stopping international communism". The "stopping communism" caption is silly, IMO. They are undoubtedly manning a machinegun position, that's unambiguous and describes what they are doing specifically. We can see that. "Stopping communism" is POV. It is also unnecessarily vague - that caption could theoretically be applied to any photo of any UN troops/sailors/airmen anywhere and it would always be meaningless.

This tank is an M46, recognizable by the lack of a twin exhaust on the rear plate. The similar M26 had a small, twin-pipe exhaust on the rear plate and lower drive sprockets. Kindly do not revert this caption if you do not know the recognition features.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

US artillerymen fire a 105mm howitzer, Uirson, Korea, August 1950.

Another caption that has been changed back-and-forth several times in the last week or so. The link to the M101 howitzer article should provide any information anyone needs. Calling this piece a "howitzer cannon" (or "canon" as it was spelled last week) is a misnomer at best. The weapon type is howitzer. "Cannon" is merely a less-specific name; all howitzers are cannons but not all cannons are howitzers. An analogy would be to caption a Rickenbacker guitar as a "guitar musicial instrument" rather than just providing a link to 'guitar'. Hope this helps. DMorpheus (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

National varieties of English

I'm unsure about whether to use British or American spelling in this article. In the July 6 revision, the only British spelling I spotted was "labour". Since then, the diffs show an active conversion to British spellings (recognised, industrialised, authorised, publicised, organised, etc.) – are we all agreeing to switch to British spellings then? Pslide (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't have any regional bias through content, so I'd suggest simply using whichever style is more prevalent, or easier for the editor to use. There's been a large amount of recent editing, and if American English has been previously used, I'd simply convert back to that. Iciac (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I frequently see editors saying that if the article content is primarily US-centric, then American english should be used, but if it's a British subject then British english should be used. Since US forces formed by far the main combat power of the UN forces in Korea, and since the political content of this article (on the UN side) is mostly about Truman, it would make sense to use American english in this article. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Anyone opposed to the above rationale? Pslide (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, not a big deal, but I noticed that "U.S." is actively being converted to "US", and date formats are being switched from "June 25, 1950," to "25 June 1950". Do we all agree? I don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. Pslide (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing it, but most military history articles I edit usually use "US" rather than "U.S." and it's a heck of a lot easier to type ;)

As for the date format, the "date-month-year" format matches US military practice but I couldn't care less which way it is written. DMorpheus (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Since no one seems opposed, I'll help make the switch for consistency's sake. Pslide (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

POV in language and section titles

May I suggest that we be as neutral as possible in our use of language in this article, especially with section headings/titles? We can create factual, neutral titles with ease. This is not the place to repeat propaganda from any of the parties in the war. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear DMorpheus:

Hello. It is good to joust with a man who stands his ground ’cause he knows his stuff. It is fun working with an editor whose perspective helps catch and curb editorial over-enthusiasm.

Thank you, for the correctives; I try to correct stylistic (POV) excesses in the following copy-editing — because I am not the author of this great manuscript — to whom we are much indebted, (per my US infantry Korean War-vet stepfather).

Once the writer’s points and data are fulfilled, the original manuscript is developed ’til it coheres. Given the ideological nature of this fascinating war I have used as much of the sources as narrative consistency will bear; thus the application of the four names for the war as respective sub-section titles: the name the subjects of the thematic sub-section use for the Korean War; thematically, the names help the reader in grasping the gist of the war-stage narrated in the sub-section, and how it fits to the whole war, because some occurred simultaneously, in different places.

The readable, discrete article comprising the data and information required to answer the question: What was the Korean War? — without having to refer elsewhere is the editorial purpose. In substantive editing, the editor must use all of the submitted text, at first; by the writers presenting the reader the four names that exist, in three cultures, for a short, eventful war (many important battles, names, dates, et cetera), the editorial consideration is using them (why the writer included them) to the reader’s advantage (a crib) for perceiving the perspectives of the (Korean, Chinese, Western) combatants (The Why?).

The (presumed) reader is an outsider-to-the-subject, who knows less than we (you and I), the military history aficionados (jousting about hyphenated tank nomenclatures and the howitzer cannon); we know that, but (please recall), not everyone else on the Internet reading this entry of ours might know that. It is an editorial consideration, albeit minor, and it is someone’s complaint, registered here, of entirely-Western bias (perspective). Only the Western name? Was it a one-combatant war? Reportage, not propaganda; I did not create the names, they are relevant facts. Politically, I concur with you, but, facts are facts . . . ignore them . . . and what is the point of the military history endeavour to report “What happened was. . . .”

With the active voice, the superfluous qualifiers (the POV) fall off, because a tank needs neither water wings nor corporate logotypes to kick ass and take names. Unfortunately, the passive voice is too-easily abused in painting POV onto an event, a thing, et cetera, thus: “. . . and then the Communist T-72 tank, made from NKVD-stolen blueprints handed by Kim Philby to the Evil Empire, over-ran the heroic. . . .” versus “. . . and then the Soviet T-72-99 tank over-ran the heroic. . . .” I think we agree. Let me know.

Integrating important technical data; the effort is rendering interest in (strategically, tactically) important (dry) technical facts of a war machine, and how they matter in the narrative, thus the thematic Why?; for example, “Aircraft began the war with a propeller, and ended with a jet engine and swept wings, in terms of combat, it means 1-2-3, A-B-C, and, per these numbers here, the turbo jet motor and swept wings led to I-II-III.”

I mention these things because, in early editing, I mistakenly identified the term Korean War as “US History”, it ain’t, it applies elsewhere in the Anglophone world, not merely the US, where we do not deign to call it a war, but a “conflict” so we might weasel away from responsibility; it was an international war, hence the stylistic differences that might embarrass . . . whom?

Again, thank you for correcting the errors in editing this good, but uneven war history writing.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me we are largely editing back and forth over the same terrain. Really, 'reducing prolixity' is an oxymoron. The consensus (above) was to use American english, so let's stick to that. Let's reduce rather than increase POV in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a novel. The writing can be interesting without introducing POV. The whole article is very weak and needs an awful lot of work, particularly with regards to sourcing. We are just tinkering aroudn the edges right now. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Kumyangjang-ni?

Where is Kumyangjang-ni exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

Let's avoid compromising accuracy for the sake of "reducing prolixity". Some words are there for a reason. Just one recent diff as an example:

Prop-driven fighters did not relinquish all combat roles, hence the "air superiority" qualifier. They shifted to ground attack and reconnaissance roles, in which their longer range and endurance were an advantage over jets. (And no, range and endurance aren't the same.)
A maximum speed around 660 mph is not 660 mph. Fact sheets state 685 mph for the F-86 and 670 mph for the MiG-15bis. (Before someone cries "POV source!", these are just examples.)
The MiG's higher ceiling could be advantageous at the start of a dogfight, not "was"; ceiling is irrelevant when MiGs are bounced at low altitude. "Moreover", the highest reported engagement was 37,000 ft, well below the ceiling. (Werrell, p. 79.)
Radar-ranged gunsights help the pilot predict the projectile impact point – the guns are not "controlled with" radar.
The Hawker Sea Fury did not serve during WWII. Hence, "designed during World War II" rather than "Second World War craft".
Losses are qualified as combat losses for a reason. Depending on the source, they may exclude "other" losses due to pilot error, friendly fire, mechanical failure, etc.
Differing roles for the F-86 and MiG-15 do not alone "account for" the disparity in losses, although they may have contributed, as originally phrased. Cited sources explicitly state that UN pilots were, overall, more experienced, skilled, and aggressive.
It is neither POV nor stating the obvious to say that the USAF quickly countered with its best fighter. The USAF initially declined to send the Sabre, citing "stateside air defense priorities for the F-86." (Werrell, pp. 75–76.)

Many passages, including those above, could be improved – but let's maintain accuracy when altering existing prose. Rather than obliterate nuance, enhance and clarify. Perhaps check the sources. Best regards, Pslide (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For ping-pong over MOS-related minutiae, please note the following:

MOS:ENDASH: "Sino" lacks lexical independence and requires a hyphen, not an en dash. Prefixes such as "pro-" should also be hyphenated, per WP:HYPHEN.
MOS:EMDASH: "Em dashes should not be spaced."
WP:ITALICS: "Loan words ... do not require italicization. If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online." This applies to materiel and regime.
See also the revert comments I posted on Mhazard9's talk page.

Before reverting, check the MOS, especially when edit summaries provide direct links to relevant guidelines.

Lastly, instead of repeatedly changing "cooperate" to "co-operate" and "likewise" to "like-wise", or writing "data is plural, even in the USA!", check a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster states that data is "noun plural but singular or plural in construction" and provides this usage example: "the data is plentiful". That said, I don't care either way.
The following dictionaries may be useful: Merriam-Webster, The Free Dictionary.

We all make mistakes, and that's fine. These comments are directed only towards the constant reversions. Please use this talk page to build consensus. Pslide (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chosin Battle aftermath: Operation Glory

...of the 4,167 returned remains, 4,219 were men, of whom 2,944 were identified as American... I don't think these numbers are written correctly. Of 4,167, (4,219) 52 more than were returned, were men? This needs more than clarification, it needs to be corrected by someone with the right figures or it needs to be deleted.Meyerj (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it – it's "4,167 containers of human remains". Pentagon site, should be reliable so I'll make the change. Pslide (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Display of the Philippine Flag

Please revise the "Korean War Infobox" the Philippine Flag is displayed incorrectly. It is inverted, I'm a Filipino, my forefathers fought for the Koreans and it its a sign of disrespect and blasphemy.
Yes, the Philippine flag may be inverted if The Philippines is under attack and has declared war Executive Order No. 321 of the Late president Elpidio Quirino The Philippine army in the Korean War is under the ensign of the Philippine Army which will not invert the flag unless Manila, the capital is under attack or has been declared by President Elpidio Quirino then. The United Nations will carry the Philippine soldiers under it's flag signifying that The Philippines is with the UN and is not involved in the fight. JoshuaCruzPhilippines 13:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove the dead soldier pictures? Give the dead people the last respect.

There is no intent to demonstrate disrespect to either of the soldiers pictured in the article. An article about 'war' is about something that is not nice. Images showing the effect of war can bring home the seriousness of war. A single PVA soldier on the side of the road is not intended to glorify the results of war, but to show the seriousness of conflict. An image of an "executed" prisoner is intended to demonstrate the atrocities of war. I have lost soldiers. I say keep the images in the article. Meyerj (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, or perhaps edit the photo and blurr the soldier's name and all identifying badge or tags JoshuaCruzPhilippines 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: