Talk:Korean War/Chinese Casualty Discussion

Edits regarding Chinese Casualties in Infobox

The original "phrasing" of the casualty numbers reflected a POV. This edit leaves it to the reader which set of numbers they want to believe in the absence of other refernce material. Calling the Chinese number from a diplomat "official" while flagging the US number as "dubious" is POV pushing. This leaves it neutral. wbfergus 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Ksyrie, I thought you said you weren't going to "make trouble" here. Parsecboy 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Number from China is not an estimation or something else,it is based on statistic.Whilethe US number is real an blurring one,so we leave the word estimation.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, stop trying to push your POV. Consensus is against you, so please stop. Parsecboy 03:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy,you are strongly biased,how can the chinese number be deemed as estimation？they got every register book to calculate the casuality

number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not pushing to get a number removed or labeled as "dubious". Regardless, don't result to ad hominems, because it makes it seem like you've run out of arguments. Parsecboy 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Both numbers are at best, estimates. The actual number is going to be somewhere in between, but nobody will ever know for sure. American "enemy casualty" figures are usually high, while the numbers reported from Communist governments are conversely, notoriously low. I'll repeat what I said in a previous section that Communist governments do NOT have it in their best interests to be forthright and honest with their people, which is one of the reasons why Communist governments restrict free media and Internet access. Many people from the former Soviet Union can readily verify this simple fact. Look at your source again, where it states that (the Chinese) "eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." Compare this number with other "official" numbers from the participating countries and see how much your "source" differs from them. wbfergus 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

you havn't to go so far by denying the accuracy of chinese number to make the Pantagon more legitime or reliable.The PVA is well organized,and every aspects of its struture are well documented.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, Kysrie, but no governmental organization anywhere is even close to being as perfect as you claim the PLA to be in terms of record keeping. You're living in a dream world if you think so. Especially if you're talking about the chaotic years of the late 40's to early 50's, when it was no more than a peasant army. Parsecboy 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your third revert, in violation of the 3RR and I am now reporting you accordingly. I am trying to keep this one simple point non-POV, and you keep making it otherwise. wbfergus 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to make such accusation,I didn't revert.It's you who falsified the chinese number as estimation in support your view.Can you find anything any source to explain why you are always trying to placing estimation under chinese number?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,"eliminated 1.09 million enemy forces, including 390,000 from the United States, 660,000 from South Korean, and 29,000 from other countries." So,in your logic,I can also place estimation under the american casuality number,while I found the chinese casuality number is not conformed with the american estimation.Just comparing.I will add chinese estimation for american casuality.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added the China and North Korea estimation of Amercian Casuality.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, politicians and diplomats are not known for telling the truth, but quite the opposite, so using a politician or diplomat as a reliable source isn't very "authoritive". Anyway, once I figure out how, I will be submitting this for mediation and possibly arbitration pending that outcome. You have already been reported for the 3RR violation. wbfergus 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with wbfergus on this point. The primary job of politicians is to lie to the public (note the cynicism ;) ). Parsecboy 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, I am continuing this here, as it really violates the stated rules on the 3RR page. You claiming something is dubious and making a POV-pushing edit, without citing reliable sources (not a diplomat or politician) and somebody else reverting your POV position is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. Pushing for a POV is however in violation. wbfergus 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Ksyrie_reported_by_User:Wbfergus section since it really belongs here and not there):

I am not sure whether User:Wbfergus really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, we discussed this numerous times on the Korean War talk page. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. wbfergus 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is Pantagon estimate.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the Wikipedia:Verifiability--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at Korean War talk page discussion 1 or Korean War talk page discussion 2 wbfergus 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just like you do not beleive the estimated number from the US, I (and many others) do not believe the estimated numbers from the Chinese government. Just because the Chinese government (through their diplomat) says the number is smaller than what the US government reported does not make it "factual". Conversely, just because the US government reports a higher number than the Chinese government does not make that "factual" either. Leave both numbers listed as estimates from the respective governments, provide source information for the numbers, and let the reader decide for themselves on which number would probably be more accurate or an average of the two. If you remove the word "estimate" from the infobox, it will be reverted back and this article will be submitted for Arbitration through the Admins. This POV-pushing has been going on for to long to continue. wbfergus 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you,we leave both number in the page and let the readers to judge.Furthemore,the American casuality number is not only released by China,but also North Korea.Maybe the 400,000 American casuality from China and North Korea is seen as laughable by some readers,the 900,000 Chinese Casuality from US is also deemed as an too inacurate one,if an army lost 900,000 men, it can't fight,it already collapesed.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic about the 900,000 casualties crippling an army is that at the time, the PLA had a standing force of over 5 million men. Over 2 million men were rotated through the Korean conflict in total. And if you look at it logically, when one side uses massed infantry attacks basically unsupported by armor and aircraft, against a well-armed, heavily supported, dug in opposition in good defensive terrain (and trust me, I've been to Korea, it's outstanding defensive terrain), the attacker is going to take murderous casualties. Looking at it through that perspective, saying only 115,000 Chinese soldiers died, and another 380,000 were wounded (a total of 25% casualties) is laughable. Compare with the Eastern Front of WWII, the Soviets suffered over 7 million combat deaths (deaths only, mind you, so not including wounded), out of about 20 million soldiers. That's over a third in just combat deaths. Add in wounded soldiers, and it's well over half. Those are the kinds of casualties an army takes when it makes frontal attacks, and the Eastern front was much more equal in terms of quality of equipment, or even tipped in favor of the Soviets as the war went on.

In short, quit POV pushing. Nationalism has no place in Wikipedia, be it pro-PRC, pro-USA, or pro-anybody-else. And for the love of God, it's the P-e-ntagon, not P-a-ntagon. Parsecboy 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Add 5 million Soviet POWs (most of them died). In fact, in 1945 Red Army finished with only 5 million soldiers - US Army had 10 million by then (and only 1 million or so the total casualties). AFAIR they lost 17 million or so dead or wounded. But 5 million was also the number they started the war with. (all numbers from memory) North Korean military was also "wiped out" few times over in the sheer term of nnumbers. --HanzoHattori 06:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of your inference,the casuality of Chinese civil war is about 2 millions(?)，while including large number of army who had changed sides.It was a more large scale war comparing the Korean war.Ok,I will try to find some docs of chinese casuality.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot compare the Chinese Civil War and the Korean War in any way. They are totally unrelated militarily. The CCW was primarily a low intensity guerrila war until the later stages, when Mao had a strong enough army to fight conventional battles with the KMT forces. For much of the CCW, both sides were anemic in terms of weaponry, supplies, and training, especially in the 30s and early 40s. The Korean war, on the other hand, was fought by large armies, and on the UN side, by a well armed force. To believe that a 2 million man peasant army fighting a particularly brutal war for 2 years, using massed infantry frontal assaults, against a force much superior in terms of technology and firepower, suffered a casualty rate of less than 25% (dead and wounded combined) is sheer naivete and total lack of comprehension of war, outside of the movies and video games. Either that or it's the results of indoctrination from nationalistic history. Either way, it has no place in Wikipedia. Regardless, I am not pushing to have the PRC number labeled as "dubious" or have it removed outright, so don't accuse me of POV pushing. Parsecboy 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to impose your owen idea such as PVA being peasant army to remove the chinese and North Korean estimate of American casuality.You are suspicious of my inference to the chinese casuality,but only limited to what you have known and what you have learnt.In fact,if all the things go like the american thought,the result of war will differ.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the PLA being a peasant army, read the article on it here. Recall that I have not argued for the removal of any sourced numbers, so quit accusing me of doing so. False accusations are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I'm not suspicious of your reference to the casualties of the Chinese Civil War, I'm telling you that you cannot compare the two wars in this situation, because they were fought in radically different manners for the vast majority of their durations. I cannot understand the rest of your comment. English is obviously not your native language; perhaps there is someone here who can translate more properly for you? As a last point, do not label edits made in a content dispute as "vandalism", as you did here. It's very bad form to mischaracterize a legitimate, good faith edit, just because you disagree with it.

I removed Hanzo's signature from the topic heading, as it appeared to be there accidentally. Hanzo, if you intended it to be there, I apologize for removing it. Parsecboy 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to this "discussion", when I was stationed in Korea during the 1975-1976 timeframe, I talked with a few Korean War veterans, at different times, who were still in the Armies of both South Korea or the US. Several of them told me about some of the battles they fought in where they said that the Chinese did in fact use human wave assaults. Two different veterans also gave specifics of the human wave assaults they personally fought against in different battles of the initial Chinese intervention (in the open rice areas south of Kaesong and another a little further east of there), where they said the first wave attacked with rifles and only one magazine of ammo, and were subsequently mowed down by their (the US) quad .50 cal machine guns. The second wave would then attack carrying nothing but ammunition and were subsequently mowed down again. This was followed by a third and fourth wave who attacked carrying nothing, but would then pick up the rifles and ammunition from their dead comrades, and by then their (the US and ROK defenders) ammunition would be seriously depeleted or gone, and they were forced to retreat. Now keep in mind that a .50 cal bullet would probably have enough penetrating power to go through around a dozen or so bodies, as that's one big slug with a high velocity and a copper jacket. Add to that that it was fired from a quad .50 (four mounted together) which were adjusted to have the fire converge at around 400 yds out, and imagine the devastating firepower being delivered against mere infantry soldiers, unprotected by any body armor. Add to that the artillery barrages and air support, and then all the rest of the individual rifles, machineguns, and recoilless rifles of the defenders. These vets said they estimated the Chinese casualties in just these two battles at easily above 20,000 (apiece), as the rice paddies were covered with dead Chinese soldiers several bodies deep, and more just kept coming. I have never read of any written accounts of either of the battles, though I do remember reading many, many years ago (probably in the late '60's or early '70's) about the use of quad .50's against the Chinese in the war. wbfergus 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this. The Chinese tactics were to launch the human wave after approaching stealthy. Most of the infantry (2/3) indeed carried no firearms, but they had plenty of grenades. Most of the arms were Chinese "burp guns", not rifles. They had also various guns including Japanese and these supplied by the Americans to the Nationalists (many were former Nationalist-alligned soldiers). They had little support and heavy weapons. --HanzoHattori 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had read several writings of Korean War,the PVA assault usually occured in the Night to avoid the Aerial bombard,and heavy gunfire.It's totally different to what you had heard or something else.If they had nothing in hand,how can they fought？Do you watch too much Kungfu movie？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This was supposed to have been during the intial Chinese assaults after the Chosin Reservoir, as the UN forces were retreating. My understanding was that the stealthy night attacks evolved later in the Korean War, during the battles for the various hilltops and ridgelines. During the initial phases of the Chinese intervention, they had to fight during daylight to maintain contact with the retreating UN forces, and were thus vulnerable to the heavy gunfire and aerial bombardments. As to how they could fight with no weapons, the tactic was using their superior numbers to drain the ammunition supply of the defenders, rendering the defenders superior weaponry ultimately useless. When the ammunition ran out, the third and fourth waves picked up the weapons and ammunition of their dead comrades and overran the defenders positions. Anyway, I've never seen this in print (except the fact that quad .50's were used against the Chinese infantry), only from stories relayed to me by a couple guys who fought in the battles. It's usually not the kind of story that gets put in print, except maybe for movies like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". :^) wbfergus 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok,that's all from mouth to mouth,maybe it's true,but it cannt be sustainable.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the North Korean tactic to make the enemy spent their ammunition on the "unreliable" or fresh soldiers such as the Southern conscripts, before sending in the well-armed veterans. I don't know about the Chinese, but many were former Nationalist troops, and most of them did not carry any gun unless they picked it up in the battle - but they did carry each several hand grenades. But as for the early stealth, remember they spent time before the Chosin offensive camouflaged (they literally disappeared first, before attacking again). Also remember many of them were former guerillas. (Oh, and as we are discussing I-don't-know-what now, check out [1] - fighting the Chinese in the mountains.) --HanzoHattori 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea which figures are correct or not. However, while you are editwarring over it, could please not mess up the format. If you must, replace "estimates" with "figures" or vice versa. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-organization is Needed

This article become heavy more than 110 Ko. We should have to cut that into smaller ones because of navigator.Whlee 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the reason why we are not splitting it is that it is a big war, and it needs to be long. Kfc1864 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Chinese estimate or Chinese and North Korean Estimate

Parsecboy seems not likely to include North Korean in their estimation of American Casuality.But if we check the source where emphasized it is a joint declaration both from China and North Korea 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.Why we must delete the North Korea name from the estimation.?Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, China is the primary proponent of this number. It was sourced from the PRC consulate in New York, not a DPRK source. Likewise, do we need to put every single country that supports the American number? No. Only PRC is needed for this source. And quit mislabeling edits made in a content dispute as vandalism. If you do it again, I'll report you for disruptive editing. This isn't the first time I've warned you about this. Parsecboy 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just check what you had said,the source itself is a chinese one,but what it emphasized states that it is from both China and North Korea.Likewise,the chinese casuality is only from Pentagon,which is clearly printed in the BBC source.For what you had called disruptive editing,I can only say WOW.Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is China not the primary proponent of the figure? Yes or no? Labeling a good faith edit made in a content dispute as vandalism is wrong. What do you not understand about that? Parsecboy 16:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No...North Korean? Okay, I quit discussing anything with you. NO. The whole thing is unacceptable. All American soldiers killed are known by name. It was all recorded. HERE ARE THEIR NAMES, RANKS, DATES OF DEATH, AND PLACES OF ORIGIN:[2]

Try to find someone who was ommited from this list. You won't. Unless you think they did the 1984 memory hole on them somehow. Or something. I don't care.

Stop disrupting this article. Go to the North Korean Wikipedia. I joked, they have no Internet. --HanzoHattori 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, that seems to be amuch better reference list of US casualties than the one I linked to. Feel free to update the numbers accordingly. wbfergus 17:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

After I have seen what you have said,and what you have done,(continuous revert the well sourced and referenced number),I thought this article is occupied by some hardcore Private Ryans who deny everything from the other side of trench.You may find it funny,but I dont't.If this article is only APOVed,this article isn't worth reading.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only POV problem we have here is yours, which is apparently driven by Chinese propaganda. You claim the DoD is flawed and biased; in America our military is controlled and watched over by civilians, and the media independently reports on it. One need look no further than how American casualties in Iraq are paraded in the news, every single time a soldier is killed. Does that happen in China? Surely not. In North Korea? Give me a break. If you don't want to read anything other than Chinese propaganda, then go to the Chinese Wikipedia. Parsecboy 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are messing the things up,I certainly do not question the American number of american casuality,which I know little about its accuracy.What I firstly questioned is the accuracy of Amercian estimate of chinese casuality,which I found absurd to use the BDA assessment to quantify the casuality rather than their own docs.In China,there's also a Museum who got the whole name list of PVA casualities(it seems it includes only the dead soldier's names,no the wounded),and the number is about 18x,xxx which I couldn't remember exactly. But,the Museum itself don't get a website,and the all the indirect mentions of this number are not from relible source,what's more important,they are not in english.You insist on posing the laughable 900,000 chinese casuality number,while can't give out a rather reasonalbe explanation why this number is suitable than the chinese one,so I found the Chinese and North Korean number of American casuality would be a good counterweight for it.That's all I want to say.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think the 900k total casualties for the PLA during the war is laughable, then you don't know much about warfare. Also, if you think I haven't given a reasonable explanation for why I think 900k is closer to the actual number of Chinese casualties, then I've apparently been talking to a wall here, the past few days. I've discussed at length, as have other editors, why saying 180k some Chinese died during the war is ridiculously low. Parsecboy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So I found the american 200K american casualities is also ridiculously low,if you question the chinese death toll list which specify the every names of deceased PVA.Your stand only question the number from other side,So I also question the American's real casuality number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you know very little about modern warfare. Parsecboy 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you really fight ever？Or did you ever fight in Korea?While I am not as professional as you are in the military discipline,but what you have learnt is the post-millenium doctrine,not the odds in 1950s.Though,you may read somethings about the Korean War,but it's not the first hand experience,which I dont get neither.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been deployed to Iraq, but that's neither here nor there, because it's a totally different kind of fighting than in Korea. However, I've read quite a bit about modern warfare. If you doubt the murderous casualties that are inflicted upon an infantry army by a dug in defender, look no further than the blood-stained fields of World War I. In 4 years of fighting, over 10 million men died, another 20 million were wounded, and another about 8 million are "missing" (which, after 90 years, and still no clue as to where they are, that means they were killed and couldn't be identified). So about 40 million total casualties in 4 years of fighting. At the Battle of the Somme, 20k British soldiers died on the first day alone, with another 57k wounded. In one day. This is what happens when an infantry army attacks dug in defenders, in a frontal assault. Advances in tactics between 1915 and 1950 are mitigated by the fact that the PRC and US militaries were ludicrously lopsided in favor of the Americans in terms of technology and firepower. If you are a student of History, and not only History, but Military History, then you'll understand what I'm saying. Parsecboy 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. I participated in a training exercise in Korea last summer. That country is nothing but fucking hills and mountains. Perfect terrain for the defender, not so great for the attacker. Parsecboy 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So after all,your reason of 900k casuality is based on your personal inference as opposed to source?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but the source is the one provided in the infobox, from the BBC. My support for that source is based on what I know about modern warfare, the types of armies fighting on both sides in the Korean War, and the terrain in which they were fighting. Parsecboy 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was stationed at the Joint Security Area for two 13-month tours in the '75-'79 timeframe. That part of the country isn't as bad as in the east, and there are plenty of wide open rice paddy areas that would be murderous for infantry, even with artillery support and smoke. wbfergus 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. myself. I guess I can't comment on the RfC, as I'm not an uniterested party.wbfergus 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right，the terrain of Korean is the same as the South China--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We all can comment on the RfC, especially when some new editors arrive and voice their opinion. If you'd like to sum up your thoughts on the issues here, go right ahead here. Parsecboy 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Summary

This articles has several different issues being debated. user:Ksyrie has argued that the number of Chinese casualties estimated by the American DoD is flawed and biased, and should be removed from the list. Consensus showed that the number should remain; at this point, Kysrie added the Chinese estimation American casualties during the war. One user, user:HanzoHattori is opposed to including the Chinese number, given the high level of detail of the American source (name, rank, place of origin, date and location of death, etc.). user:Parsecboy (myself) would prefer to list only the American casualty report, for the same reasons as Hanzohattori, but is willing to allow the Chinese estimation to remain as part of a compromise. Lastly, Ksyrie insists on including "North Korea" to the "Chinese estimation" caption on the American casualties, such that it would read "Chinese and North Korean estimation". I feel this is unnecessary, as the PRC is the primary proponent of the figure, as well as it clutters the infobox. 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved

My views should be pretty self evident from the summary provided, if anyone has questions for me, go ahead and ask. Parsecboy 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the casuality number,what we want is to find the true figure,the more accurate the possible,in fact there's a PVA Commemorative Museum in Dandong,where the PVA crossed the Yalu River.And they got an imperfect list of PVA dead soldiers.There's chinese news link here [3],I guess all of you do not read chinese,so a tranlation of goole is useful,[4]If other don't believe this number,I will insist on placing the 400k amercian casuality number in the infobox.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That source is unreliable. It's highly POV, referring to the dead Chinese soldiers as "martyrs". Sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard. Parsecboy 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok,that's what I felt,you call all the chinese source POVed,I got enough.You guys are predominantly biased.If you cann't accept the reliability of chinese source,I will not accept the american source as the consequence.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And you accusing the martyrs as POV is from your ignorance of chinese culture,chinese often avoid the using the death,dead,among other things to describe the deceased men instead using the more rhetoric word such as martyr,you can ask a korean whether they talk the same way,While I am sure,it seems they follow the same customs.Ok,what I have stated is that you cann't accept any source only based on your biased,not the facts.Refusing hearing from others leads to conflict.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WEll, I am a Korean, and I don't say like that,POVpusher!Kfc1864 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you guys probably captured some dogtags from the dead or captured soldiers. You know, the ID things. I've got something nifty for you: take some, and look if they are NOT on the lists of the soldiers killed. Then you guys find these soldiers families who probably think they were kidnapped by UFOs or something (tens of thousands of them appeareantly, but you don't need very many of theem really), and go on the MAJOR STORY in order to totally embarass the US Army (which is now actually pays North Korea 100 million dollars for the remains of any soldier who went missing in the war, and yes, they have a complete list of the missing too). Yay!

Oh wait, this won't happen. Guess why. --HanzoHattori 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will forgive your ingorance of chinese organizational structure of conscription.Every county got a millitia department to take charge of every aspect of conscription,take their names,families location,record their injuries and death,after the war,the soldiers are welcomed first by this unit.So they get every entries of the name list.The death list in Dandong is based on the sumup of all these local name lists.Unless,there's someone who joint the PVA outside of China,the name list will be exhaustive--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is (still) getting long and convoluted, and if I remember them as get done typing the first point (I'm just a "hunt 'n peck" typist), I have a couple points.

1. I'm personally in favor of have both sets of estimates. It lends more balance to figures, and I also remember a few occasions during the Cold War with where the US DoD and the media reported some numbers of something which were countered by the Russians with a greatly different number, which was usbsequently proven wrong after the fall of Soviet communism and the opening of the Kremlin files. For the life of me, I can't remember the "incident" now, I'm not sure if it was from something from WWII, Hungary, Africa, Vietnam, or what.

2. Ksyrie, that is very interesting about how the Chinese military compiles their lists. It has always been that way, since the very first days of Communism in China? I doubt if it was that way during the days of the Chinese Civil War against the nationalists, as who would be keeping the record book for the Nationalists? As I understand it, most of them were fighting not for money, but for their beliefs. Recording their families location, etc. wouldn't have mattered, as it was lost. I doubt if the Chinese military recorded such detail from Nationalist controlled territory until after they had captured it, and the CCW didn't end until May 1950, and the Korean War started June 25, 1950. That only leaves one month to get that organized in recently captured territory.

The practice of local 人民武装部 or similar organization(i dont' know the official english translation) at leat started before the Long March,and during the Sino-japanese war,this pratice was implented in all the CCP governed area.It's just one implentation of People's War.1950 is already one year after 1949,and the whole China is already controlled by PRC government.After Dec 1949 the majority of populated territories were already controlled by PLA,from then on,there was only relative small scale battles.So the setup of local militia departments are not a question.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3. The Chinese Army was massive. From History of the People's Liberation Army, in 1949 the Army "was an unwieldy, 5-million-strong peasant army". Now this doesn't say exactly 5 million, that's assumed to be an estimation. The article goes on to say that the "PRC also claimed a militia of 5.5 million". Again, another estimation. The section ends by stating that during the '50's, the Chinese military shrunk to 2.8 million (another estimation) by "demobilization of ill-trained or politically unreliable troops". Now, I can't say that China did follow Stalinist doctrine, but Stalin's way of "reducing" anything was usually through death. Since the Korean War was going on, what better way to either remove those deemed unreliable, or conversely, to have them prove themselves reliable, than to send them to the Korean War? At least 14,000 of them must have gone, since that's how many Chinese POW's refused repatriation to China and wound up going to Taiwan instead. How many of those "unreliable" soldiers wound up dying or were wounded and evacuated to China is unknown and open to speculation.

LOL,you are using the pharse in the History of the People's Liberation Army，did you ever check these phrases are referenced or not.And can you read the article more carefully,it said During the 1950s(which in my understanding spans from 1950 to 1959), the PLA with Soviet help transformed itself from a peasant army into a more modern one. At that time, demobilization of ill-trained or politically unreliable troops began, resulting in the reduction of military strength to 2.8 million in 1953(The year ends the Korean War).Do you find anything strange or not？After the war,the ordinary way of Army was to demobilize them rather than keep a large standing army.China had been fighting from 1911-1953,it's too long for chinese people,so do you find anything wrong to demobilize the large army while facing no direct menace？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and one of the ways they got rid of those politically unreliable elements of the PLA was to send them into the PVA to fight and die in Korea. That's why 1953 is the year they were down to 2.8 million, the same year as the end of the Korean War. Are you so blinded by your nationalism to not see the obvious connection? Parsecboy 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL,the politically unrelible members won't be sent to the front if I were the chief of staff of PVA.Do you ever know the bombardment of supply lines by the US airforce?What if the unrelible soldiers revolt or change the sides of war？What if their presence bring down the morale of whole army？It seems I have to lecture the basic concept of war to you,while I found all these stuffs you should already know.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what? You're not the CofS for the PVA. You know absolutely zilch about any military, any way of fighting, and any history of such fighting, and you continually demonstrate this by your ill-informed, propagandist posts here. The reason these soldiers were deemed "unreliable" was not that they would switch sides in battle, or flee in cowardice, IT WAS POLITICAL UNRELIABILITY! Now, in a Communist country, all that means is THEY CAME FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS. You're not lecturing anyone on the "basic concepts of war", you're only making it strikingly obvious how little you actually know about this subject. Parsecboy 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my deleted words infuriating you,let's return to the topic,I just said a sane military leader shouldnt include the fighters who he don't believe,especially when fighting a more powerful army and the supplying line is bad.I really apolagize for my upcoming words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously not paying any attention to what I'm saying. The "unreliable soldiers" weren't unreliable AS soldiers. They were unreliable as members of the unquestioning masses, because they were members of the middle class. Many of them were excellent soldiers and seasoned veterans. Parsecboy 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You do know little the chinese society,at that time,the majority of chinese are peasants,why the PVA had to recruit the newbie in the cities?Even they wanted to the middleclass to be enrolled in the Army,the job will be more tough.Had some refered something about the the 5million peasants army?Look carefully it was peasant army not the middleclass who you thoght to be supposed to be persecuted.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kysrie, many in the middle class did support the CCP. The KMT wasn't exactly the best government for a lot of Chinese; it was corrupt, forced to support warlordism, etc. After the end of the civil war, these elements of the CCP were deemed unreliable, because they came from a middle class background, and were purged. Parsecboy 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, please see my comments below (currently at the bottom of this section). wbfergus 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ksyrie, this happens a lot in the communist countries. Stalin was mentioned - he used unarmed penal battalions to clear the minefields by their own bodies (confirmed by Zhukov, who was a butched himself). The unreliable/unwanted conscripts like the Ukrainians in the 1930s were used as a cannon fodder by the Soviets. Same the Armenian genocide included the Turks conscripting Armenian men into unarmed units and working them to death. The North Koreans used the badly-armed South Korean conscripts as the cannon fodder, and it happens that many of the Chinese in Korea were both former Nationalists and essentionally unarmed (no gun, some grenades - fight). See this article for some examples: http://www.gendercide.org/case_conscription.html --HanzoHattori 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to explain every details of chinese history before 1949,do you know why the CCP won the civil war and survived?The reason is too simple,they are communist but de facto Land reformer,CCP promised to the peasants that after winning the war, the lands of landowner will be allocated to the farmers,so the peasants all support the CCP,and they even don't need to recruit the ordinary infantries from the middleclass or the townsman,except some senior officers,they just confiscated several great manors there's automaticly peasants who want to joint the PLA.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're simplifying a bit too much there. Were it not for US Secretary of State George Marshall forcing Chiang Kai-shek to hold a truce with Mao, the CCP would've been crushed, and Mao would be a forgotten revolutionary, nothing more. Read Chinese_Civil_War#Post-war_power_struggle for a more in depth explanation of the changes in the balance of power caused by George Marshall's temporary truce. Parsecboy 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't overstate the truce triggered by GM,The Red Army had been fighting with the KMT for almost 20 years already at that time,furthermore,just imagine a state whose 80 or 90% population support (I made an assumption，at that time the townman is a little percent) CCP,why they will not win the civil war?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they had benn fighting for 20 years at that point, but the majority of that was small scale, and 8 of those years were during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. The fact remains that some 1.5 million KMT soldiers were disbanded, and many went over to the CCP. That's a huge shift in the balance of power. I question your allegation that 80-90% supported the CCP during the Civil War. It wasn't until late in the war that the CCP actually overtook the KMT, and that was primarily because of the effects of the Marshall Truce; 1.5 million less soldiers, and no more American military support. Parsecboy 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

80 or 90% is just my assumpition，see my words in the parenthesis,I made it from that-time peasant percentage of Chinese people.And the Marshao truce in my view insnt as strategical as you think,for the previous 20 years,there's no X truce,in my opnion(there's interupt by the Japanese invasion),if there's really no one in China support the CCP,it has already been eliminated,considering the worldwide anti-communist wave after 1917.In fact,we cann't make the history to happen anothertime,maybe the Marshall Truce is really as important as you think,I can't tell.It's called Alternative history all right?I suggest you can tried to write a such novel,maybe it will become a really hit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe explain to me why so many (majority?) of the Chinese forces had no firearms. There was less than 1 million guns in China? --HanzoHattori 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The chinese lacked heavy armature,but for the general purpose rifles they could fabricate it themselves,see Hanyang Arsenal,and it is not the only one in China at that time,moreover,the PLA got the weapons either from the Surrended Japanese army or the changed-side KMT army,The Soviet also directly provide some after 1950.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

4. The Chinese PVA first conducted attacks against UN forces with 270,000 men ([[5]]). Official Chinese sources ([[6]]) are also quoted as saying that the PVA suffered 390,000 casualties, so the numbers show that many men were added to the initial force or esle the Chinese PVA would have dissolved. Also, the Korean War article states that only 70% of the PVA were were Chinese regulars from the PLA, so who were the other 30%? the "unreliable" soldiers? Again, it's unspecified and open to speculation, but by Western standards, as backed up by Stalin's actions over his years of power, it seems pretty legitimate that that is who made up the 30%. Take the "unreliable" soldiers, give them no (or defective or unloaded) weapons, tell them if they want to "prove" themselves worthy, they must attack. Most, if not all, wind up getting killed during the attack, depleting the defenders ammunition, and becoming propaganda for the masses about how these brave young men valiantly gave their life to protect their Korean brethren.

I have to say you are really wicked heart,did you ever consider why they send PVA rather than PLA？Why,PVA is to avoid direct national affrontation,because the PVA is namely Volunteers.But if all the PVA are comprised by PVA,the PVA became PLA,so the war become the officially fighting between US and China.30%(which is not sourced,I don't know whether it is an accurate number) will be a good excuse to emphasize the volunteer nature of PVA,while it is de facto ,a regular army.Do you get any docs to prove the unreliable soldiers are used as target？Why they had to use their own lives to deplete the ammunition rather to take some more clear tactics？e.g attack in the night and from the lateral sides?Did PVA must attack rather than defend the front？If they are less veteran why not place them in some less important front to do the jobs such as patrolling or convoying the supplies or defending some place？Or can these less experienced sodiers take the mission to fight the less-experienced allied army such as the South Korean army or turki ones？Your words make me doubt the american doctrine,do the amercian staffs often use the fresh newbies to set as target of gunfire？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We all know why the PVA was formed, you don't need to tell us. You ask "Why they had to use their own lives...more clear tactics？" That's called a massed infantry wave attack. That's what the Chinese did in the Korean War. The whole point is to overwhelm a technologically superior but outnumbered force with sheer weight of numbers. Obviously, the guys who go in first are cannon fodder. So, you send in the ones you don't care about (politically unreliable) in first, so the reliable troops can do the actual fighting afterwards. Again, are you so blinded by your nationalism to not see this? Parsecboy 15:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism？you tag the chinese in Mainland as nationalist? lol,in fact the nationalist chinese are in Taiwan,not in the Mainland China,the textbook of chinese primary schools taught the kids to set free the whole world,not to gain prominence of China worldwidely.Do you really ever read the meaning of communism？Human wave attack really cause heavy casuality,but it was the only method without heavy artillery and air superioty.Why the PVA must send the politically unreliabe in first?The politically unrelible will not go across the Yalu River,if they are not reliable why send them to a critical battle field？What if they leak the intelligence?Do you get any basic idea of war?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really sad. I'm starting to lose my patience here. Read a freaking dictionary. From dictionary.com:

na·tion·al·ism –noun

1. national spirit or aspirations.

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4. the desire for national advancement or independence.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

I am well aware the meaning of Communism, I am likewise well aware that true Communist ideology doesn't last much further than the revolution, if it was even there at all. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so don't give me that "free the whole world" bullshit, because that's all it is. I already explained the "politically unreliable" issue above. Parsecboy 16:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So where do you find excessive patriotism; chauvinism and behaviors?Just I talk about the chinese casuality number from the Dandong PVA museum?Why the one who pose this number is labelled as excessive patriotised and chauvinised?I have excerpt the first phrase from chauvinism Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group,did you find the where comes from the extreme and unreasoning partisanship when I place the death number from the list? and Did I show the malice and hatred towards the rival group？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do I find excessive patriotism and chauvanism? In practically everything you say. Your attempts to censor anything negative towards China (the image of a dead Chinese soldier, your attempt to outright remove the DoD's estimate of Chinese casualties, etc.) Everything you've been arguing here has been largely based on nationalism. Your refusal to accept basic facts about how wars are fought, and the results of the manners in which they are fought, your refusal to accept that China, and Communist countries in general, have a history of distorting history to create a populace too ignorant to oppose their grip on power; it's all nationalism and chauvanism. Parsecboy 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The negative aspects of China?the removal of Chinese estimate is not for the reason my patriotism,the reason is that I found this number is not reliable comparing the Chinese own number,while they got a name list(thought not as accurate as the american one)If we found something not as reliable as another why not remove it?And the dead PVA soldier PIC，I found its presence is not balanced,why there's no dead amercian soldier or south korean one?And when someone posing the second dead PVA soldier I can surely regard it as an obvious biased attemptation.So If I don't make any attempt to remove it,there will be a third,a fourth one.And your arguing my nationalism is just from your little experience of contacting of ordinary chinese people.comparing other democratic countries (which is one of the most using word for the American),China is relatively new to all of you considering the normalization of Sino-american relation.And don't know men tended to regard the alienized people as dangerous?The cold war ended at the end of 1990s,and don't you ever live in the propagandized demonized media coverage for longtime？Do I refuse how the manner of fighting?From which sentence you find I am refusing? And the distorting of history by communist country do relate the chinese casuality number?In the narrow sense,to enlarge the chinese casuality number will be a more clever method of distorting the history,just imagine if the one demagogic chinese politician give speech the the naive chinese people saying that the evil capitalist amercian killed 1 millions chinese good men,they are really really bad to stir the hatred，don't you find the exaggeration of chinese casuality do conform what you had said about evil propagation?Thoughout the history,to exaggerate the number will be a more appropriate method of propaganda,especially for the country who had been fight for longtime to protect itself.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So there's no dead American or Korean soldiers picture from the Korean War in the article; this isn't Title IX. Have you gone looking for one already on Wikipedia or in the Commons? If so, and they're not here, have you gone to find any that are unlicensed or at least fair use? If no, then you have no right to complain about it. No, my arguing that you're very nationalist is not based on my "little experience of contacting of ordinary chinese people". Nationalism is not limited to China. I've encountered a whole lot of nationalism, even just here on Wikipedia, as well as in the real world. As an historian, I know it when I see it. You ask "Do I refuse how the manner of fighting?". Yes, you have questioned it. Wbfergus and I have both repeatedly argued with you about the fact that massed infantry assaults produce horrendous casualties, as well as the use of the "politically unreliable" soldiers as cannon fodder. And no, enlarging the number of casualties will not have a better effect, if one is trying to make the population believe your side won the war. Your logic is flawed in that argument. Parsecboy 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I was once placing a dead amercian marine pic (pic isn't uploaded by me) in the page of death,quickly it was removed,and someone isn't happy with it,when I tried to revert,he or she just replace it with a dead german soldier one.If you are denying the systematic bias of english wikipedia,I will say wow,though I thought maybe english wikipedia is one of the best wikipedia which follows the NPOV rule.For the Politically unreliable soldiers,you should know the PLA is essentially a peasant army,and to some extent,the peasants were very supporting the CCP.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for other editors on Wikipedia. However, I did look at the edits you made at Death, and you in fact mislabeled the picture; It's a picture of an Iraqi Army soldier killed by Marines, not a dead Marine. I do not deny that the English Wikipedia is biased towards Western civilization, but I would say that of all of the different language Wikipedias, it's the most NPOV. Parsecboy 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, due mainly to Stalin's own documented tactics of purges, North Korea's constant falsification of pratically anything and everything over the last 50 years, and even China's constant crackdown on dissent and free media or religion, it's extremely difficult for most people in the West to accept most of what gets reported by Communist countries. It does make for more balanced reading though to at least see the other side's story, even if we do discount it. wbfergus 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word,your statement are ful of logic flaws and often based on your imagination rather than the factfinding.They do not provide any useful infos.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, how much military history (of the world's military history, not just China's) have you actually studied? It has been a common tactic for countless centuries to use your least reliable soldiers first when confronting a "superior" (whether technologically or numerically) enemy, before using your better (or elite, well-trained, whatever) soldiers. There have been some occasions were this didn't happen, but not many. Usually generals send the least reliable soldiers first aginst a superior force, to either delete their ammunition (modern day warfare) or to tire the enemies sword (or spear) arm, and at least try to inflict a few casulties in the process, while pinpointing the position of the defenders and also hoping to draw out any reserve forces. Then that initial attack is followed up the more seasoned (veteran) soldiers, who by then will have pinpointed the defenders positions and can conduct a more "professional" attack. Rarely has any general throughout history attacked a "superior" enemy in the defense with their best troops first. Usually those engagements have resulted in a victory for the defenders. wbfergus 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I know what you said,the Game theory,in fact there's plenty of occurrence in the history.But why you are always posing the quesion of unrelible soldiers?IMHO,China is a well human sourced relatively,and to find 1 milllion or 2 million reliable soldiers or politically correct ones are simply easy.Considering the relible soldiers for all the army throughout the world fight better than the unreliable ones,why PVA must send unreliable soldiers to the front，while consiering the supply difficulty and toughnese of war?Just use your commen sense and a little logic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another thing to think about, Ksyrie. These "politically unreliable" soldiers probably weren't even unreliable. They were Chinese men and women, fighting for China. Sure, at some point they may have grown disgruntled with China, but they were doing their duty as patriotic Chinese. Just like most Germans who fought in World War II; they didn't necessarily agree with Hitler's policies (or even know about them), but they were doing their duty as German soldiers. Parsecboy 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's more than game theory, it's been used for thousands of years. And yes, China is very well "human sourced", being the most populous country in the world. But, after winning a war primarily about idealogy, the next (and only) step available is to eliminate those who are opposed to the ideology. Having mass executions like Stalin did in one of his many purges is a tad noticable. If there is a conflict going on in your vicinity, what better way to eliminate those who you "think" oppose your idealogy than to send them to fight a war as front line troops? Now, going back to the percentages, whether they are right or wrong, 70% seasoned veterans and 30% something else, that means the 70% could just as easily been "guarding" the 30% "unreliables" and forcing them to be frontal assault troops. Now in a country as large as China is (and was even in those days), there must have been quite a few people who were opposed to Communism who didn't fight with the Nationalists. There were quite a few in Russia, and the estimates of Stalin's purges range from over 3 million to 60 million. He pretty much wiped out the educated people (teachers, doctors, lawyers, and even the officer corps of the Russian Army). It is not difficult to imagine that Chinese Communists did much the same when the oppurtunity presented itself. Look at Chairman Mao's many purges, or don't they teach those in China? You get rid of those who either do question your power, or those capable of questioning your power, and instead begin a new generation where everybody is completely indoctrinated in only your way of thinking. It's mere common sense that has proven itself over and over throughout history. wbfergus 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can say this really happens in every country or every army.Since it happens throughout the century,I can assume it also happen in the US Army,maybe the US army are sending the Communism-symphasizers or some minorities the white don't like to the frontline as the cannon fodder.Or they just impressed the South Korean civilians as the supporting force or the Allied force which are minor and less equipped and dont' exercise too much command over the Allied commandeship,Just comparing the death ratio of Chinese soldiers and North Korean soldiers,and the ratio of American soldiers and South Korean soldiers,we can find that astonishingly the Amercian soldiers really get much low casuality percentage to South Korean ones (in fact the South Korean outnumber it )comparing the Chinese casualities to North Korean ones (The chinese outnumbered the North Korean one).So following your logic,the US Army are using the South Korean and other Allied force as food for powder.Are you satisfied with the inference?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now you are really getting way, way out in left field. If what you are saying above is (or was) true, then the media would have reported it accordingly. Because unlike Communist countries, where the media is controlled by the Communist Party, Democracies have something called "Freedom of the Press", where the government does not them, and they are free to report what they want. This is why the American media has so many articles/news stories critical of the government, unlike what you experience in China. The Great Chairman Mao "purged" anywhere from 40 million to almost 79 million people opposed either directly or indirectly to his regime. That simply doesn't happen in democracies, as power shifts to often, instead of being "cemented" with the same people and the same single party forever. wbfergus 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you guarantee the media reporting what they want means that they will report what had ever happened.The freedom of press doesnot necessarily equal to report of truth.While to some extent,the freedom of press really report more truth than the mediacontrolled country.But it is to some degree,what if the re's no enough journalist during the War,and what if the journalist prefered the truth to what they like,and what if the reporter of good news outnumber the bad news？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, regarding your question (from the below section, where we "shouldn't" be having any discussion), about the media. In short, the American media is more biased against the American government than against other other countries, though on occassions, this is reversed for a short time (like after 9-11). American media quite often shows demonstrations around the world against America, but rarely shows anything from other countries that are pro-American, like the yearly memorials in France at the site of the D-Day landings, or how well the French maintain the cemetaries of the American war dead. In the Chinese propaganda article, it is intersting to note as well that you are the one who flagged it with the NPOV flag. You seem to like using the American Propaganda article (which you re-label as "notorious propaganda"), but then you turn around and label the propaganda article about China as being biased. I wonder if you realize how flimsy your arguments become because of that, or how easily "we" could reverse your "logic" and and play the same game against your arguments. Now, since (below) you accused me of not answering your question, how about answering mine? How often does Chinese media report on dissidents, or those that oppose the Chinese government or it's policies? What happens to those dissidents? wbfergus 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your words In short, the American media is more biased against the American government than against other other countriesonly right one part.I will give my verison,the American media is more biased against the Amercian government than the X media is biased againt the X government.The American media is biased to the German like the Germany media is biased to the US.I can't find the appropriate words to describe,maybe one is called intrastate bias,another is interstate bias.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We're going awfully off here. It's not the media that talks about history & Korean war - it's the American academia. Academia =/= media. (Wikimachine 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Ksyrie, please answer my questions above. You have posted numerous since I posted them, and you are avoiding answering them, though are quick to accuse others of avoiding your questions. This is really beginning to remind me of the Military Armistice Meetings I guarded in Korea at the Joint Security Area. Especially the one right after the Axe Murder Incident, where the North Korean delegation (including the Chinese), stated that our two American officers weren't killed directly by the North Korean guards, but instead ran into the North Korean's who were merely standing there holding the axes. wbfergus 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you just give me sometime to refresh？I am the only one of my side and you got three who continue posing different quesions.Using the language other than the mother tongue to debate is painstaking.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That should tell you something. Consensus is against you, my friend. Parsecboy 21:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the funnest words I had ever heard in wikipedia,personnally,I have never heard some editors trying to simply go against an individual rather than their statement or source.Your word remind me of the chauvinism accusation,let's check what's the definition of chauvinism,Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You interpreted what I said literally, that's not what it meant. It means that consensus is against what you're arguing, not you personally. Your objecting to anything that is negative for China is exactly that: partisanship on behalf of a group to which you belong. The dead Chinese soldier, the Pentagon's estimate of Chinese killed during the war, etc. Parsecboy 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok,since you had added the hidden meaning of it,I wont go further.But this phrase is really really misleading,I mean,for all the man who can read english,and without your explanation.And the partisanship in my view,comes from your action,you insist on keepint the amercian estimate but deleting chinese and north korean one,moreover,as you haved seen in the page of death,a dead american pic isnot welcomed.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever argue that the CCP estimate of American casualties should be removed? I only argued that it should just read CCP, not CCP and DPRK. Don't accuse me of something I didn't do. And again, the picture you put on Death was not a dead American, it was a dead Iraqi, killed by Americans. Read the image caption yourself. Parsecboy 12:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,it's not you it's User:HanzoHattori who remove the Chinese and North Korean Estimate[7]

,and for CCP or CCP DPRK issue,why we had to delete the North Korean name?It is well presented in source?Strange enough.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, Ksyrie, you are seriously trying too hard. Didn't you even see the body's in the Iraqi green uniform, completely with the Kalashnikov ammunition vest on his chest?[8] Now I think it's true you are completely clueless here. --HanzoHattori 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a military professional,I wikisearch the US dead soldier keywords like that,and I found this is a dead US marine.(while it's not true).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In the usual WHAT reaction, I want to say I used the photo of the destroyed US tanks in the Battle of Okinawa for example. As well as this of the dead Japanese soldier. I don't know what the problem (your problem). --HanzoHattori 10:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the statisticly there's no dead US soldier pics in Wikipedia,considering US got everything in the past and now to upload a dead US soldiers pic (they fought many wars,they got more cameras or recording apparatus than any other countries ,their digitalized images are the most ample,their freelicensed photos should be the most released).Am I wrong?Sometime,I thought I am talking to noone.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by uninvolved parties

• I think both estimates should be in the template with their sources clarified. Further fact-based elaboration on these estimates in the article should be useful and informative. The Chinese estimate shouldn't be called "Chinese and North Korean estimation", unless it was a joint-research project. Cydevil38 07:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese estimate" is a notorious propaganda lie from the unfree country with no free media even now, where access to the independent information on the Internet is censored/blocked. American casualties, on the other hand, are known each by person and not contested by any independent source such as the free media. --HanzoHattori 08:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Such information is what I mean by "elaboration", though it should be fact-based. Anyways, I'm trying to find South and North Korean estimates. This may take some time, especially for the NK estimates. Cydevil38 08:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Keeping your illusion,in the Cold war times,every countries are Propagandizing,the American estimation number is from the capitalist information warfare,another notorious propaganda while using the unbalanced media influence to serve themselves,how can you explain the CNN controversies#Invasion of Iraq,CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation.The Amercian media is biased,largely systematic bias,from your words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, obviously you are not very familar with American media. While it is usually biased, it's usually biased against the US government. The American media loves to report stories about government mistakes, whether they be military, political or criminal, even going so far as to sometimes make up news stories sometimes (Dan Rather is one example, another is that NY Times reporter). If there is a way to embarass the US government, the American media will report it. wbfergus 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Did take times to look what I have stated,notorious propaganda,CNN controversies#Invasion of Iraq,CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation are the bias againt the US government or againt other nation or other people？The CNN controversies#Temporary ban from Iran for mistranslation was embarrassing the CNN itself or the Whitehouse?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, this is getting way off topic. Regarding the "propaganda" article, I really, really had a good laugh when I read that. Then I started looking around at other "propaganda" Wiki articles, and I found Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. Let me just say that it is interesting to note your edits there. Censorship is a form of propaganda. How often does Chinese media report on dissidents, or those that oppose the Chinese government or it's policies? What happens to those dissidents? That does not happen in the West, only in Communist countries (except for a few former communist countries, who are still trying to either adapt to non-communist rule or are trying to cling on to the last vestiges of communist rule). wbfergus 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In my view,Censorship is just one thing to give rise to Bias,on the other hand,freedom of speech cann't eliminate bias even thought it really alleviate somehow.I mean,with the freedom of speech,the US theoretically is less-biased than the mediacontrolled country.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are avoiding my question whether the amercian media show the systematic bias to other nation and people？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you know absolutely nothing about the American media, so stop talking about it as if you do. Yes, some news agencies are biased to support the current administration, and others are biased against it. However, the press remains free and independent, very much unlike the media in the PRC and DPRK. There is very little censorship (essentially limited to "you can't say fuck on tv, or we're going to fine you $100,000"), again, very much unlike the PRC and DPRK. Parsecboy 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, Parsecboy is truly right. I live in the US & I'll never be able to make any POV or authoritarian control accusations on the American academia (maybe not the media) as I could on the DPRK (just go to their official news page - they talk about their nukes being able to annihilate US, etc.) & PROC. (Wikimachine 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

This is something that we shouldn't consider seriously. The same old editors - the CPOVs- have been going down the list & creating disputes in everything:

• Baekdu Mountain
• Lake Cheonji
• Template:History of Manchuria
• Goguryeo-China wars
• Goguryeo
• Balhae
• Northeast Project

Definitely, you can't contest the American sources b/c America has a disciplined & non-biased academia while China is complete communist POV. (Wikimachine 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

User:Wikimachine,there's no something called truly right in the world,even the Quantum mechanics or Theory of relativity--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest using a 'weighted average' to come up with an acceptable number. The US side would have a better idea of how many they lost, as would the PROC of thier losses. On the North Korean/Chinese side they would certainly know (to a reasonable degree) how many they had sent into battle, and after an period of action they would regroup and reform units and make a determination how many they lost. Same on the American side...either side estimating how many enemy they killed is just a guess but should still be factored into the equation. For American dead, computing an average that gives 70% weight to the American number and 30% to the PROC estimation should be fair, likewise for the Chinese dead - 70% weight for the PROC number and 30% for the US estimation.Statisticalregression 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. Parsecboy 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this closer to 'sourced based research'- but my idea might still stink. I make no claim that it's a good idea just an option to consider. Statisticalregression 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

South Korean estimates

I'm trying to get some official numbers on estimated casualties, but it's harder than I thought. In the meantime, I found an estimate from a South Korean encyclopedia:

• 6 ·25전쟁의 3년간에 걸친 동족상잔의 전화(戰禍)는 남북한을 막론하고 전국토를 폐허로 만들었으며, 막대한 인명피해를 내었다. 전투병력의 손실만 해도 유엔군이 한국군을 포함하여 18만 명이 생명을 잃었고, 공산군측에서는 북한군 52만 명, 중공군 90만 명의 병력을 잃었다. 또한 전쟁기간 중 대한민국의 경우 99만 명의 민간인이 목숨을 잃거나 부상을 입었다. 이 가운데 상당수는 남한지역을 북한군이 점령하고 있는 동안 인민재판 등의 무자비한 방법에 의하여 '반동계급'으로 몰려 처형당한 억울한 희생이었다.[9]

According to the above source, the U.N. forces, which includes the South Korean forces, "lost 180,000 lives". North Korean forces lost 520,000 men and PRC forces lost 900,000 men. For North Korean and PRC forces, it does not specify what was "lost", so it may mean "decapacitated", which would include the wounded and POWs. Cydevil38 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

South Korean are probably the same as American, and in general the UN. It's obviously for the killed and wounded - the US for North Koreans in 518,000 (520,000), and for Chinese 886,000 (900,000).

180,000 UN dead obviously include tens of thousands of South Koreans who were captured and executed, conscripted, or not swapped after the ceasefire (in all most of ~80,000). --HanzoHattori 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care. WP:OR. (Wikimachine 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

What? I'm just pointing out the South Korean figures are the same as the US, only less detailed (520,000 not 518,000, 900,000 not 886,000 etc.) - meaning the dead, missing, and wounded! OR my ass. --HanzoHattori 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind then. Sorry. (Wikimachine 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

A question for Ksyrie

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here, anymore? I feel we've lost track of to what you are objecting. Parsecboy 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I want also pose the same question,but when we are talking,unless I pointed out some simple historic facts,I cann't make me understood.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After lengthy discussion(?),we can reach the agreement?

I mean I propose to list the inexhaustive name list numbe 18xxx as the chinese casuality figure of death number and the 40K estime wounded number from chinese consult as the chinese estime wounded number.For the two estimate number from the rivals,either we all remove them,or we both include them.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RECAP: I propose that the US casualty numbers only reflect the ones present on the website found by User:HanzoHattori at [10]. The reasoning being these appear to be the latest round-up of casulties, free of clerical (and other) errors, and have passed review by historians, family members, and probably media. These numbers have not been disputed by any "affected" parties (like family members missing out on benefits, etc.), so they must be fairly accurate, if not totally accurate. Now for the contentious part, I propose that the Chinese casualties be listed twice, once with the label "US estimate" and again with the label "PRC estimate". Again, the reasoning being that neither side (US or China) has had these numbers subjected to scrutiny by historians (academia) so that they could be appraised by subjective, non-partisan reviewers. Being this far beyond the actual events, an accurate number of these casualties will be impossible to achieve, so estimates from both sides are the best possible numbers. The number of Chinese casualties made by the Chinese consulate has not ever been subjected to scrutiny by subjective third party sources, while the number of US casualties have. So, in fairness, allow the Chinese casualties as stated by the Chinese consulate, but label it accordingly. wbfergus 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am totally disappointed by your words,do you really know what does the WP:NPOV talk about？NPOV ask all the views should be presented,but not the only present the view which you think is right or you favours.I am not sure whether other involving parties agree with you or not,but you are really really biased towards you,towards to what you thought to be right.(I am not point to other editors)--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV also means reliable sources. I reject 100% any compromise. We will put only US estimates. (Wikimachine 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

You misinterpret the Wikipedia:Reliable sources,Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, both are theoretically reliable sources. But even they can vary slightly. However, we're not going to put in 5 different sets of statistics on the basis that they're all reliable sources. (Wikimachine 14:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Also, I don't misinterpret the WP:RS. I didn't base my opinion on that to begin with. Simply, Chinese sources on Korean war are not reliable. (Wikimachine 14:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Ksyrie, what is not NPOV in my suggestion? The US casualty numbers have been subjected to scrutiny by numerous historians over the years, and the numbers have changed accordingly as errors or omissions were discovered? So, it is fairly obvious that the number of US casualties is fairly accurate, and the only number in which there is any dispute, is whether the Chinese estimated number or the US estimated number of Chinese casualties should be used. So, I proposed listing both estimates, and labeling them accordingly as to their source, either US estimate or PRC estimate, and let the user decide which to use. Then if you absolutely want to have the Chinese estimate of US casualties listed, list it in the article, especially since the Chinese estimate of US casualties hasn't been subjected to review by subjective third-part sources. It's pretty plain and simple, and if we asked any Admins, regardless of country of origin, I think that they would agree. I think that allowing both US and PRC estimates of Chinese casualties is a fair compromise, when one really wasn't needed, as this could easily have been pushed to the point of completely disregarding the Chinese number. wbfergus 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. In the article, you could talk about how the Chinese estimate was different. I'm talking about the FYI statistics box stuffs. (Wikimachine 15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Your words are partially right,I remember recently,the American Causuality figure has been changed,because someone found a mistake.So can you surely assume the rightness of this figure?And why you dont' use the chinese museum number in Dandong?This one [11]

,how can you question the chinese estimatie without check the american one?If the American figure is right,why someone can find a mistake?In a word,I sum up your wordsThe american figure is totallly right,and we dont use the chinese figure and choose the chinese estimate one.Dont you find you are biased?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am being biased. As far as the number of US casualties, the American number has been verified by numerous historians and other subjective, third party sources, otherwise the errors wouldn't have been found and corrected. So, the 36,516 "battle dead" plus 92,134 plus 8,176 unaccounted for number (136,826 total casualties) is about as accurate as anybody can get, while the PRC claim of 390,000 American casualties is completely unverifiable and is not substantiated by any subjective third-party source. Just because a Chinese diplomat stated the number in a speech does not make it a fact or verifiable. What is POV about that? wbfergus 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding which set of numbers to use for the Chinese casualties, the link you provided (after translation) seems to suggest that it is not a complete list, where it says "This collection, filled the Revolutionary War not a complete list of martyrs gaps." It goes on with the next sentence by saying "The next stage", meaning more work needs to be done. I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but to me it says "currently, these are the numbers until we work on it some more" (my words). So, this implies an estimate as well. So, let's be fair and list both estimates of Chinese casualties, even though the Chinese numbers have never been subjected to a thorough, independent third-party review (historians from other countries) as the American casualty number (of US casualties) has. wbfergus 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with wbfergus. The difference between the American list of their own casualties and the Chinese list of their own casualties, is that the American one has been independently checked several times, while the Chinese list hasn't. Also, as wbfergus states above, the source you provided makes it seem as the list is incomplete. Parsecboy 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Attention,everybody,look at what I found,I am sure after You read what you had seen,you will not critise the chinese estimate number anymore

Just go to this page Korean War Veterans Memorial#Troop statistic,and check the UN and American casualities number and the number in this article infobox,and the one of chinese consult 1.09 million.I mean,after you read this you will never critize my words.Let's the sources talk themselves--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As wbfergus pointed out, the 54k was the clerical error that included all US servicemembers that died during the Korean War, not necessarily in the Korean War; this has since been rectified. Read the footnotes for the sources next time. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I really really want hear someone apologizing for his attacking me as chauvinism,emmhen.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing in a nationalist basis, and I will not apologize for calling you out on it. Deal with it. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone is blindly asserting true right true wrong,don't even to check the source in their native language.emhen.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And you apparently don't bother to check the source either, to make sure you don't sound like a fool when you make assertions that are obviously seen to be illogical. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If noone is going to talk,I suggest we move on,ok?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have jobs, Ksyrie. At 17:26 UTC that's 12:26 EST, most people are at work or at a lunch break. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just give some words ok?let's me know what you are thinking about.Feel free to talk to me--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, thank you for bringing this page to our attention. First, let me point out that the number of American wounded on that page lists the total number of times an American went to an aid station for treatment of wounds, not the number of Americans who were wounded, which is 92,134. See (again) [12] for the correct numbers. Next, let me point out that the page you just pointed out, list the number of 54,246. This number includes 17,730 people who died during the Korean War timeframe, but who were not in the Korean War. If you did your research, you would have noticed this. Now, take the number of US casualties from the page you pointed out to us (even including those who didn't die in Korea), andd you get 172,847. Now, compare that to the number you like to quote from the Chinese consulate, which is 390,000 US casualties. There is a difference of around 220,000. Can we now move on, as the Chinese consulate number was just proven wrong, even when using the number of US casualties that historians now admit was high? wbfergus 17:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the UN number reported on that page Korean War Veterans Memorial includes South Korea. There is a difference between UN and US. wbfergus 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you done with talking with yourself yet? I told you once, the casualties statistics were changed and are now much lower. The enemy losses estimates are lower too. I'm repeating myself. See also:[13][14] --HanzoHattori 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes,but this number has been used for almost 30 years in US,no one ever finding the mistake in the free of press country,so how can you say the american number is true right?Moreover,you just take a look at the UN　casuality number in this article and this info box and the number of chinese consult,aren't you finding something?In fact,as far as I can imagine,China and North Korea maybe not truely separting the American Casuality number in their total estimate,but their total estimate seems more reliabe.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you explain the great differnce casuality number in the Memorial and the one in the infobox?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, am I talking to a wall or what? The numbers were revised since - all of them. I'm saying this 3rd time already. The US was a clerk error (all deaths in the time period). The South Korean - I don't know (the old figures were massive, I don't remeber now, but remember reading them long ago, before the Internet access, and wondered then if this was an error of some kind and seemingly really was). --HanzoHattori 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking to a Wall,I felt the same when I am talking until this finding.Yeah,The US is doing a good job in finding the real number,while China is also doing their own.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Following my assumption,not only China and North Korea could really seperate the estimate one country by another,but also The US and South Korea couln't.I can imagine when they are fighting they may know there's enemy but they don't really know from which countries they are fighting.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. There were quite a few countries participating in the UN mission, while there were only two on the Communist side; PRC and DPRK, and the DPRK's army was largely destroyed by the time the PRC entered the war. Parsecboy 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can NK rebuilt their army?China entered in 1950,but the war ended in 1953--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, the only thing I want to say:you are talking to a very patient opponent, just listening to your opinion makes people think that they are talking to a wall.Kfc1864 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont' know why you said this way,let's take a look,the SK army were defeated By NK army before the NK army being defeated by UN army,since the South Korean army still fought after 1950,why North Korean army cann't？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that much, as after Inchon the NK army was not really fighting a lot- mostly it was China after that, and the SK army was only trapped in the Pusan Perimeter and quite a lot of them were left. Didn't know?Kfc1864 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The best solution in my view is the removing the estimate number from the enemy side,because it is in nature not as accurate as the number from their own country.If all of you insist on placing the estimate from enemy,I suggest we add somewords saying that though the total estimate may be more reliable,but the recognization of each countries maybe difficult.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree or not?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese estimated number of American casualties has been proven wrong, roughly 2/3rds higher than what the numbers actually are. If their numbers can be so wrong once, why not a second time? Those numbers have never been subjected to independent third-party scrutiny yet, as the American casualty numbers have been. It therefore cannot be proven either way if the numbers reported by China of their own casualties are accurate or not. China can't even accurately report how many people were killed during Chairman Mao's purges, somewhere between 40 million and almost 79 million, so how can their estimates of the Korean War be deemed reliable? Many of us are getting extremely tired of this constant bickering back and forth and are about ready to ask the Administrators for a final say. I personally think that the compromise I have offered you (several times) is the best you can hope for, and that more likely, they would say to just disregard the numbers and the sources you have provided as being unreliable and unverifiable. Let's reach an agreement before we have to resort to bringing in the Admins. wbfergus 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you want to remove the "US estimate" and leave the "Chinese estimate", with total (NK+PRC) as "at least".... right? I think "at least" seems unreasonable - it's unlikely to be less, and possibly much more. I also hope you are aware the NK can't be trusted at all with anything. --HanzoHattori 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I am not making myself understood,In fact for the chinese death number,there's a number while not an exhaustive,which I found it is a figure not an estimate.Secondly I recomended we both removing the estimate number from the enemy side,because it is in nature not reliable.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And do you think the NK figures, whatever they are, are reliable? According to them now, there were practically no Chinese aid to them! Look up for this, it's amazing how Orwellian is this country. --HanzoHattori 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact,some NK fighters or division are previously in the framework of PLA,I though they really share the intelligence more closely than you thought.To some extent,they are sharing a lot of infos just like the different countries do in UN command.In other words,the US estimate is UN estimate,and the China estimate is North Korea estimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just can't remember,there are 3 or 4 divisions in NK once serving in Manchuria as the subdivision of Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army,at that time China and North Korea maintain a very close tie.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I tried a compromise, but if you think these figures are authoritative, then no. --HanzoHattori 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,but bear it in mind,there's no aboselute authoritativity,even the American figure itself undergo several change.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-binding Straw Poll

Note that this is non-binding, and being used solely to see if we can finally put this issue (what numbers to use in the infobox for US and Chinese casualties) to rest by everybody agreeing to something. If there is not unanimous approval, I suggest we finally submit this to arbitration.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) one or two-line comment (only one). If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place, but note them as "First choice", "Second Choice", etc. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Part 1:

• For US casualties, list both US and Chinese numbers.
  • sign your name here
• For US casualties, list only US numbers.

1. wbfergus 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) These numbers have subjected to third-party review, primarily historians, and have been found to be as accurate as possible.
2. Per aboveKsyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC), For reasons stated during the debate
4. Cydevil38 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC), per above.
5. Wikimachine 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Absolutely.
6. Kfc1864 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) obviously.

• • sign your name here

Part 2:

• For Chinese casualties, list both US and Chinese estimates, notated as "estimates".

1. Parsecboy 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC) The US estimate is a reliable source, and should not be removed because a Chinese person finds it offensive.
2. Cydevil38 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC), the purpose of this article is to be an informative source for English readers, not to please Chinese people.

• • wbfergus 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (1st choice) After more thought, this may be more comprehensive, though I can still live with my 2nd choice.

1. Kfc1864 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) per debate

• • sign your name here
• For Chinese casualties, list only Chinese estimate, but notated with "at least" or "incomplete".

1. wbfergus 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC) The web site submitted for these numbers, leaves the impression that this is still a work in progress and will (should) change (2nd choice)
2. Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • sign your name here
• For Chinese casualties, list only Chinese numbers.
  • sign your name here

Discussion

This area is for comments longer than two lines. Please keep these short, and try not to duplicate what has already been posted in previous messages above. Only one (long) comment per user, so if you want to add something, add it to your previous comment. Let's try to keep this orderly and short, as we have already made our positions known previously.

I want to make clear one thing,the chinese estimate is the one from chinese consult,and the chinese number is the one from the chinese museum ok?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't believe the US estimate of the PRC's casualties should be removed because Ksyrie finds it offensive as a Chinese. Wikipedia is not censored, and the estimate is from a reliable source; the BBC. Ksyrie has argued that the US estimate cannot possibly be as accurate as the Chinese one, because it was made up after the end of the war. This is not the case. After every single engagement, units as small as squad level submit situation reports, 9-line-medevacs, spot reports, etc. to their higher command, for everything from casualties suffered, casualties inflicted, need for ammunition and other supplies, etc. I'm an intelligence analyst in the US Army, and see these reports all the time. The standard operating procedures that govern these reports have been around for quite a long time. We practically have an after-action-review every time somebody takes a piss. Parsecboy 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this [15]

Wbfergus change the American casuality figure after see my finding and before you recently joint.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's the source Hanzohattori put forward, earlier in the debate. Don't take credit where credit isn't due. Parsecboy 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I only updated the Amercan casualty numbers (to a higher number), than what was previously listed. wbfergus 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I really really dont want to say too more,just check the amercian own sources,there are 3 different version of american casuality,from 126K to 144K 172K,there's 30% difference beween them,and if you check the UN one from 474K to 2836K 500% more.That's what the source you find tell.Astonishing.If you really call one is reliable,and other isn't.I will have really nothing to say.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're pulling these numbers from. Perhaps provide links to the sources themselves. As for the 2.8 million from the UN source, it probably refers to the total UN force, not the US specifically. Parsecboy 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

2.8M is not UN source,it is american source for UN casuality,check Korean War Veterans Memorial#Troop statistic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The UN number includes South Korea wbfergus 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But the infox number also include South Korea--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be a discrepency between the casulaty numbers of other countries (like the entire UN), but this discussion is only about the US and China numbers. The others will have to be a different discussion. wbfergus 22:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am only showing the reliability of the american sources isn't as reliable as you assumed,which I doubt from the very beginning from the wrangling,when I firstly required to remove the American estimate of chinese casuality.But some of you accredit me as nationalist or chauvinist,someone said the american source is trueright,and someone said consensus is againt me--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is what we've been saying all along. As the numbers are subjected to more review by outside sources, the numbers change accordingly over time. The latest set of numbers are therefore the most accurate. For the Korean War memorial, have you looked at the refrences, where it explains the different sets of US casualty numbers? Let's get this back on track again. wbfergus 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take my words too seriously.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksyrie seriously needs to learn that the world doesn't revolve around China. Trying to get rid of American estimates in this article, and trying to assert that Goguryeo was "Chinese" in making edits such as this just because "Chinese think so" won't just cut it.

As for other concerned editors, I think an official U.N. estimate will help a lot. Anybody have it? Cydevil38 00:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd liked to have both Chinese and American estimates in the text except that the FYI box w/ the statistics shows only American estimates - the text should identify which are American and which are Chinese estimates . But that wasn't in the poll as a possible option. (Wikimachine 00:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

I saw only blindly nationalist partisanship,check what User parsecboy and Cydevil38 said what they vote for the chinese casuality number, I exerpt the two one said because a Chinese person finds it offensive,anothernot to please Chinese people..Yeah,I really found placing the american estimate offensive,but it's not based on my nationalist or someelse,I talked from the very beginning that the estimate number is not reliabe in nature than the number from their own countries,one best exemple is that the countries often make mistake on their own number,so how can their estimate of enemy is seen as more reliable than the number from their own country?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 06:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You konw Ksyrie, many of your claims on Goguryeo is extremely offensive to Koreans. But you don't care, do you? You should look at things from different perspectives, and realize that the world doesn't revolve around you or Chinese. There may be many differing opinions on the same subject, but some are more reliable than others, coming from sources that are under academic scrutiny. And such sources aren't necessarily Chinese or favorable to Chinese. But you still have to respect that if you want to contribute to a global encyclopedia. Cydevil38 09:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There's two different offensive,one is the factfinding,while other is ungrounded.I mean,logically,do you find something what I put forward is unreasoning or just my illusion?Sometimes,people will take their anger out on someone who told another aspect of truth,don't you find?When someone inform the cuckold of the adultery of his wife,always the one who told the truth suffered.In fact,in chinese wikipedia,I also post some verifiable sources which don't please anyone,often they were removed intentionally without even a edit summary.There's always skeleton in the warobe for all the families or every culture every nation,In fact,I found the chineses wikipedia is better to some extent,thanks to the blocking by the GFW,there's more facts which ordinary chinese people dont want to face than any other wikipedia,I mean if North Korean got another similar but independant korean wikipedia,there will be ful of the facts which the southkorean don't dare to look at.Or to a similar situation,while english wikipedia thought dominated by the allied of US people,there's still some voice not pleasing for american.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This is seriously the height of absurdity. Are you actually arguing in support of government censorship as a means to increase the population's knowledge of "facts"? Do you really think that when Chinese people google "Tiananmen Square" they get links to Jimmy Carter's visit there, instead of the protest-turned-massacre in 1989? You must be kidding me. This is seriously, the most insane thing I've ever heard on Wikipedia, and I've heard some fucking outlandish stuff. Kysrie, if you truly believe this, then you have no place on the English Wikipedia. Parsecboy 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is called black humor if you understand.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that your comment applies to many other Chinese editors here. You, Jiejunkong, and Wiki pokemon have all clearly shown that your edits and wishes here on the english wikipedia are solely in the interest of China and China only. Nobody cares if the Chinese people will be angry that we use the word "Manchuria". English users are fine with it. If you and other CPOV editors aren't, then you are not doing anything good to wikipedia. Good friend100 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know the issue of renaming of Manchuria.But I found the translation of this word isn't proper,the Romanized Manchu of this area is Manju and Pinyin is Manzhou,both are two syllable,how can some translator （i dont know whether it is a chinese translator or not) make it into a 3 syllable Manchuria?In fact in China there's one city called Manzhouli which is 3 syllables,it often makes me confused when prononce Manchuria--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're just defending yourself, but if this was really the case then you don't get Wikipedia's naming convention - which I'm sure you do, but you're just denying stuffs. (Wikimachine 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

I don't know the changing name issue of Manchuria,just imagining,Korea this word comes from Goryeo ok?both 2 syllables,if english speakers tried to add a -ria after that don't you find it funny,Korearia or, Chinaria,or Japanria.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We cannot change the name of 'Manchuria' because most people in the English world use it, and this is the English Wikipedia if you ever realised it. Manchu is the name Koreans use(like me) but Ksyrie, can you ever realise that the world does not take orders made by a person who is, looking by his edits, is clearly a Chinese POV pusher, and you cannot change the name of the region to people who used it for all their life after they learned it.Kfc1864

"Human Wave" attacks

Okay, I've noticed that several people besides Ksyrie have been stating that "Human Wave attacks" did not occur. I've also noticed that these same people often quote (often without sourcing it) the Korean War FAQ from the [[16]] site, which is CPOV, as it tells China's side of the Korean War. So, as I was looking it over, I noticed many different quotes people have used on various Wiki pages/articles, and lo and behold, I ran across this "interesting" paragraph (#9): "PVA's main strategy at the beginning was the so-called "movement war", the main objective was to divide the enemy into isolated pieces and then use superior strength of force to annihilate the encircled enemy piecemeal before enemy reinforcement could be brought in, to do this, PVA uses frontal attacks and simultaneous penetrations to cut directly into enemy rear, cutoff MSR (main supply route) and withdraw routes, trap enemy units when they tried to redeploy." This was preceded by this information (#8): "PLA was basically a rifle infantry with almost no heavy weapons beyond mortars, their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war, and they lacked ammunition. When the Korean war started, PRC was less than one year old, and it was focusing on reconstruction of a nation which suffered 8 years of Japanese aggression and plundering. China's steel production was a meager 0.6 million tons (in comparison, US figure was 87 million tons). China had almost no industry, it could not make weapons at large quantity, especially heavy weapons and their ammunitions. A PLA army then had less than 10% of the fire power of a US Corps, it had only 36 artillery pieces of 76mm or larger, while a US Corps had over 300 guns of 105mm or larger, PLA army had no tanks."

So, this leads to the question, if the Chinese admit that the PLA/PVA was so ill-equipped, with basically just rifles and little ammunition, how could they "use superior force" unless they actually did use the "human wave attack"? They admit having little ammunition, so this lends credence to some "stories" about human wave attacks. It also doesn't make any sense at all for any army to subject good, seasoned troops to any kind of frontal attack against dug-in defenders if they have little ammunition. It makes much more sense that an army would conduct fronatl attacks with troops they cared little about, whether they were those deemed "politically unreliable", ex-enemy fighters (KMT or Japanese forces), or just untrained troops, saving the seasoned veterans to attack once the defenders ammunition supply had run low, the defenders positions had been completely identified, and any possible reserve forces had been deployed. The FAQ goes on to talk about the "First Campaign", which are the intial battles in northern North Korea. FAQ question #12 states "Although US/UN forces had superior firepower, including ariel bombardment, heavy artellery and tanks, PVA foot soldiers performed very well in this first contact with the modern US army, the UN forces were driven from Yalu back to south of the Chongchon river. PVA gained their first experience and confidence. Furthermore they concealed their strength. US estimate of the PVA strength after the campaign was about 40,000, a big miscalculation." Okay, so how can an army with basically nothing but rifles and little ammunition, inflict the kind of damage they did against US and ROK forces unless they did it soley through sheer weight of numbers? Ksyrie should also like the part were it says the US estimate of the PVA strength was about 40,000, when in fact the Chinese admit that they started the Korea campaign with 270,000. So, instead of overstimating Chinese troop numbers as has been claimed several times, it was drastically underestimated.

I did get an awfully good laugh though when I read the following paragraph (actually just a long running sentence): "During the truce talks, PVA invented the bunker war, they would dug very long and deep bunkers in the hills and stock supplies there, when enemy shell the hills, they would withdraw into the bunkers, when the shelling stopped, they came out to fire on the attackers, after the surface positions taken by enemy, they would withdraw back into the bunkers, then PVA artillery would shell the enemy on the surface and they came out the bunkers again to assist the retaking of the hill."

This helps highlight how when the occasion seems worthy, some "stretching of the truth" can occur. Bunker warfare was hardly invented by the PVA during the Korean Truce Talks, as even the most novice historian can easily point out. Anyway, at least there's some useful information on the site as to which Chinese units were involved were, etc., so the units listed at Category:Infantry Divisions of the People's Volunteer Army can probably have some information updated. wbfergus 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

use superior force in my opinion means to attack from front,lateral and back,that's to say to encircle,not the human wave.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you're highlighting how little you know about warfare by saying that. The only way possible for a poorly armed army to defeat one that is many times over superior in terms of firepower and equipment is through human wave attacks. The PVA had to outnumber the UN forces in a astronomical amount for it to be victorious. There's no other way around it. And your assumption of the meaning of "superior force" is totally incorrect. If it meant to use flanking attacks, they would've said "superior tactics", not force. Force applies only to the amount of soldiers you have, and the weapons they're armed with. So the only possible meaning there is that they used human wave attacks. Parsecboy 16:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I really dont know how the millitary personnel to interpret the superior force,but it seems these words can be interpreted differently .I just excerpt the whole sentence use superior strength of force to annihilate the encircled enemy piecemeal before enemy reinforcement could be brought in,it seems that the superior really means superior tactics.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And where do you think that "superior strength of force" came from, if they had no tanks or other heavy weapons? That means a whole lot more infantrymen. Parsecboy 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not question me,it's no I who wrote the Superior strength of force,In fact,I thought the author，you,and I didnot fully multiunderstand,especially for the definition of words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the phrase, I'm questioning your interpretation of it. As a side note, the link that wbfergus posted appears to be broken. Parsecboy 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PVA uses frontal attacks (see quoted paragraph above) sounds more like the human wave, with the seasoned veterans being the ones who actually attack from the sides and rear, and the "politically unreliable" being the "frontal attack". wbfergus 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But you omit the upcoming pharse and simultaneous penetrations to cut directly into enemy rear, cutoff MSR (main supply route) and withdraw routes, trap enemy units when they tried to redeploy.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, even with well trained soldiers who actually have a weapon AND ammunition, this is extremely difficult for any soldiers who would manage to survive the frontal attack. It's fairly obvious to anybody with a military background (and even quite a few who don't), that what the remainder of the sentence means is additional troops (beyond those conducting the frontal attack and the encirclement) conduct those attacks. So, once again, it's sheer weight of numbers. These tactics have been used for thousands of years and are just basic military doctrine (besides common sense), regardless of country. And, the enemy rear, MSR, and withdrawal routes are usually guarded as well with armed "defenders", though nowhere near the amount of firepower available as from the front line forces, though this is usually where the reserve forces are located at (who are so well equipped) unless they were already committed to battle. So again, by China's own admission, their soldiers at the beginning (especially Chosin/Changjin Reservoir) were equipped with cast-off weapons ("their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war") and little ammunition ("they lacked ammunition"). So, there is absolutely no way troops so equipped could inflict the damage they did against technologically superior firepower unless they had overwhelming superiority of numbers, so they could exhaust the ammunition supplies and present more targets than could be acquired and engaged by the defenders. No matter how you look at it, that is just plain ol' common sense, otherwise the defenders could easily use their weapons and ammunition to shoot through the (basically) unarmed attackers of the "rear areas" (MSR, etc.). wbfergus 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean,the common sense,if Ona army had got superior number,and another is limited.It means that the front which the limited one can sustained is limited,that's to say their front is narrow to some points,but the geographically the superior number could just go attacking their rear or front,that's my understanding.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you re-read Battle of Chosin Reservoir. wbfergus 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,this a well organized article,but there is no links I can verify.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

After looked at the infobox of this battle I found these:60K PVA fought after China won the battle there are 67.5K casualities,furthermore 30K UN troops defended after they lost the battle there are 15K casualities.It means that there are troops from the Moon who fought for Chinese,It's really amazing!--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Ksyrie. I didn't notice that myself. Without knowing where the numbers came from, I wondering if some "casualties" wound up getting counted twice, like frostbite and wounded? I don't really know. (The following is meant as joke, no offense intended). But, with a country with over a billion people, what's a couple thousand either way? wbfergus 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you interpret your phrase But, with a country with over a billion people, what's a couple thousand either way?？，more clearly,so I would not mistake your meaning.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...didn't he already say it was a joke? Parsecboy 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it was meant as a joke, no offense intended. Just trying to lighten things up a bit here, we've been arguing so long. Statiscally speaking, a margin of error of 3-5% per hundred is still pretty darn good. With a total population of over 1 billion, an error of 1,000 is what, about .000001 per hundred? Something along those lines anyway, math is not my forte. wbfergus 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, guys

Without reading between the lines of the Chinese wesbites and pub stories of veterans:

Tactics of the Chinese Communists in the Korean War

Excerpt from The Future of Warfare, by Bevin Alexander, 150-52

The first job of Chinese Communist forces when they invaded North Korea [in autumn 1950] was to stop the United Nations advance, which was nearing the Yalu River.

Although extremely limiting in some respects, the Chinese dependence upon the backs of animals and soldiers liberated them from roads and permitted troops to fight anywhere they could walk, whether in front, on the side, or behind the enemy lines. UN forces, on the other hand, were tied to the roads because their supplies arrived by truck. The roads, therefore, were vulnerable to being cut by roadblocks.

During the Chinese civil war, Mao Zedong and his commanders had developed a highly effective method of dealing with more heavily armed Nationalist troops. Peng Dehuai now adapted these tactics to the Americans and their allies.

The Chinese tried whenever possible to infiltrate through enemy positions in order to plant a roadblock on the supply line, in hopes of inducing the enemy to retreat to regain contact with the rear. If UN forces stayed in position, the roadblocks still were useful in cutting off escape routes and supply.

In infiltration and assaults against front-line positions, the Chinese moved largely at night to avoid air strikes and reduce aerial observation. In attacks they tried to isolate individual outposts, usually platoons, by striking at the fronts, while at the same time attempting to outflank them. The purpose was to defeat forces in detail by gaining local superiority. If they could not destroy enemy positions, they hoped to induce the opponent to withdraw. When this failed, they got as close as possible to the enemy so that, when daylight came, U.S. aircraft would be unable to bomb them for fear of hitting friendly troops.

Advancing Chinese units generally followed the easiest, most accessible terrain in making their approaches: valleys, draws, or streambeds. As soon as they met resistance, they deployed, peeling off selected small units to engage the opposition. However, if they met no resistance, the whole column often moved in the darkness right past defensive emplacements deep into the rear of enemy positions. There were many examples of this in Korea. In some cases entire Chinese regiments marched in column formation into the UN rear.

Once fully committed, the Chinese seldom halted their attack, even when suffering heavy casualties. Other Chinese came forward to take the place of those killed or wounded. The buildup continued, often on several sides of the position, until they made a penetration ---either by destroying the position or forcing the defenders to withdraw. After consolidating the new conquest, the Chinese then crept forward against the open flank of the next platoon position. This combination of stealth and boldness, usually executed in darkness against small units, could result in several penetrations of a battalion front and could be devastating.

Since the Chinese tried to cut the defending force into small fractions and attack these fractions with local superiority in numbers, they favored the ambush over all other tactical methods. As a rule attacking Chinese forces ranged in size from a platoon to a company (50 to 200 men) and were built up continually as casualties occurred.

The best defense was for the UN force somehow to hold its position until daybreak. With visibility restored, aircraft could attack the Chinese and usually restore the situation. However, Chinese night attacks were so effective that the counsel often went unheeded and defending forces were overrun or destroyed.

They were mostly a kind of frontline guerillas (night attacks, night movement, inflitration whenever possible) - the NKs instead used the WW2 Soviet tactics heavily depending on armored attacks for a breakthorugh (T-34 mostly), at least in early phases. --HanzoHattori 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And yes, there WERE Chinese heavy losses, and not stopping because of heavy losses (instead throwing more into a meatgrinder). And yes, many (most) troops had no weapons but grenades, and many were former Nationalist soldiers. But also they were better armed later, and while they had little heavy arty, they had plenty of mortars (and mortar was the biggest killer of the Americans in Vietnam - not bullets, or mines and traps). --HanzoHattori 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They love quantity over quality. Good friend100 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

About the 3rd comment

I had no access to internet for days,so it's a little late to pose these question.Mr. Killigan,Can you make your comment more clearly,when talking about the issue of more american viewpoint of this article,do you favor or go against this viewpoint？furthermore,do you really think the death number isn't as important as the quality of article？What if the death number isn't important,why the DOD insisted on finding the real figure of american casualities?Please answer my question.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the DOD insisting on getting an accurate number of US deaths, as it is (was) the families of those who died. The families wanted (and usually needed) the official acknowledment so that they could qualify for any benefits, such as burial, insurance, etc. As such, then DOD had to verify the circumstances of death for all of those claiming benefits, and match those up with their own records of the personnel involved, the units they were assigned to, etc. So in short, the numbers are not simply arbitrary numbers picked out of the air by a politician, diplomat, or other self-serving individual, as happens in many other countries. The numbers are based on real figures and actual unit rolls and histories and eyewitness accounts (usually after action reports), but as has been shown with the clerical error, (of also counting those who died in like Germany during the same timeframe), are subject to change as more "eyes" look at and question the process. So, at least as far as the American casualty number is concerned, it's about as accurate as anything that ever could be put together. To many eyes have looked at it over the years and to many families have worked to get the benefits due them for their service member's sacrifice, many times with pressure from both the news media and their elected politicians. wbfergus 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the death number really matter,but why Mr. Killigan find the chinese casualities is not so important than improving the quality of this article？Let's look at what he had said I just hope that you guys will stop arguing over something petty like how many people died, and instead work towards making this article A-class or even FA status (provided that you all work together).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about improving the text of the article; if there are sections that are a bit skimpy, or need sourcing, and so forth. In the grand scheme of things, the infobox isn't really that important, it's just decoration. Just like all the pretty templates and pictures, it adds to the article, but the quality of the article is judged by the text, not the eye candy. Parsecboy 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the infobox isn't important,why bother remove the additional US estimate？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Chinese estimate of American casualties or the American estimate of the Chinese casualties? Parsecboy 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked about the importance of casualities in the infobox.Since you found the numbers are petty,why not remove the additional estimate？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to remove the American estimate? It's reliably sourced, so it should stay.Parsecboy 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, the number of American casualties only needs the official US number, not the Chinese estimate, as the number has been subjected to scrutiny numerous times for many years. The Chinese estimate can be part of the article's text however, as it may be beneficial to other readers to see how China (mainly communist countries in general) exaggerate the losses of their enemies while minimizing their own losses. I have no problem however having both US and Chinese estimates of Chinese casualties in the infobox. Both sets of numbers are estimates, as the link Ksyrie provided (for the museuum) on the now archived page showed. Readers can judge the accuracy of the numbers based upon their own POV and other references. wbfergus 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are too confident to the american scrutiny,as I had found before,the american numbers differ largely,for some number,it is unbelievable wrong.Why not just keep a chinese estimate to make it more neutral and reliable.You keep on saying the american number is ok,ok,prefect,but when the american number fails,you react with the silence.I mean if you want to estimate or judge,comment on others,let other to do the same thing on you.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I make another comment, what is the DOD? Mr. Killigan 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

this.Kfc1864 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this arguing has gone long enough. I recommend doing a vote to establish majority consensus of involved editors. It seems the disputed content is the casualty figure in the infobox. So what would the potential options for a vote be? 1. Chinese estimates only, or, 2. Chinese and American estimates, or, 3. American estimates only? Any ideas? Cydevil38 07:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. For these 3 choices of which set of Chinese casulties to show, I'd vote for #2, if that does mean for Chinese casualties to list both the American estimate and the Chinese estimate. I would vote against #1, and #3 would be a viable second choice with the condition that the Chinese estimate be included in the article's text along with the Chinese estimate of American casualties, so that the numbers are more readily apparent to the reader. wbfergus 10:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We already had a vote, in the now archived talk page. We had all in favor of just the American figure for American casualties, 3 in favor of listing both for China, one for just China, and wbfergus was more or less neutral on the 2nd issue. Why do we need a second vote? Parsecboy 11:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Cydevil38's talk page, it appears that he has already gone through the page/contnet dispute problem before with CPOV editors, and may have missed the previous vote, and just wants to follow the procedures step-by-step to finally bring this major (petty) headache to an official end. Ksyrie appears to be pushing for CPOV, but browsing through his "contributions", he seems to have contributed to the quality of some articles. I have no idea how accurate those additions may be, as I do not know Chinese history very well. It is also apparent though that he been in sevral (numerous?) editorial content disputes, so it is difficult to acurately guage his intent. With that behind me, I am willing to give Ksyrie the benefit of the doubt on this article, chalking up part of it to a communication problem with the English language (as evidenced by his use of the language and writing style), part to just Wiki-etiquette, and part to understanding that he wants to try and present his country in the best light, as I'm sure we all do. However, I feel very strongly that only the American number of American casualties be listed in the infobox. Regarding the Chinese casualties, I personally would prefer that the American numbers be listed in the infobox annotated as an estimate, with the Chinese estimated numbers of both sides casualties being listed in the article's text, is the best and most fair (or balanced) alternative. This keeps the Chinese estimates of both sides casualties together and in the same spot, and since the Chinese estimates of American casualties are easily disproven through reputable international sources, they don't belong in the infobox. Allowing them in the article text though (properly sourced and annotated as "estimates"), should allow us to finally progress past this while still allowing Ksyrie to post his countries numbers. Since even the American numbers of Chinese casualties are at best an estimate, I feel this is a fair compromise. wbfergus 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely forgot that we had a vote. I apologize for that. So looking at the vote again, I guess the verdict has been decided with a majority consensus. So why are we arguing? Lets move on. As for my personal thought on the infobox figures, I think the current version is appropriate. When I read a paper on the Korean War by a South Korean Sinologist, it said that among various estimates on Chinese casualties(probably includes the wounded), the most conservative estimate, i.e. minimal figure, is around 500,000, and there are also estimates that go well over one million casualties. So it seems neither estimates are decisively reliable, hence, I think having two estimates available, which would also imply to readers that there are different estimates out there, is the most appropriate choice. Cydevil38 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point I forgot to address - as for American casualties, I don't think Chinese estimates should be used. It may sound unfair, but I wouldn't consider the Chinese government a reliable source of information, as any other totalitarian governments. Cydevil38 13:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries about forgetting about the previous vote. I agree with you, we really don't need to be having this discussion anymore, consensus is clearly against Ksyrie's argument. He's the only objecting party to the page as it stands. Parsecboy 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and gentelmans,before you regarded me as CPOV or somethings else,have you ever checked what you had done and said?Through the whole dicussion,I perceived the obvious nationalist and chaunvinst bias,And the ones who had found the american number or figure is wrong,don't dare to make some comment.The whole article is regarded by 3rd comment as american viewpoint.Since you had all known the article isn't NPOV,why just add another chinese estimate or remove the american estimate to make the article more NPOV.If you keep on attacking me to be biased,I can only see it as the manoeuvre to avoid the biasd nature of this article.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you're misinterpreting what Mr. Killigan said. He said articles on the English Wikipedia tend to be written from a US/UK perspective, meaning that since this is an English language encyclopedia, sources from English speaking countries (i.e., US/UK) will be used more often than those written in Mandarin or Bantu, for example. Not that articles are biased towards the US/UK, but that more information is known of the English perspective. For example, there is a wealth of information on the Allied homefronts during WWII, but considerably less is known about Japan or China. You keep saying that the American figure has several different numbers. The numbers you provided when you first made this claim have been explained over and over again. An admin clerk made a mistake and added every single service-member who died during the Korean War timeframe (be it in Korea or in the states or Europe, etc.), not just those who died in Korea. This mistake was later discovered. The 3rd number you provided was the UN estimate of total UN casualties, not US. The Chinese estimate is demonstrably false, while the American estimate of Chinese casualties is just another estimate, as Cydevil38 pointed out. Per my comment above, Ksyrie, you're the only one with a problem with the infobox as it currently is. Take a hint, and drop it. Consensus on this issue is crystal clear. Parsecboy 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese and North Korean estimate of american casualitiese is also written in English.The american figure for american casualities got 3 versions,the mistake of clerk only explain the 2,but not the 3.the UN casualities is also written in English,so the US/UK perspective is not as accurate as you thought to be.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What 3rd number are you talking about? There are the two figures related to the clerical error. What is the 3rd American number that has not been explained? I searched through the archived talk page, and could only find 3 numbers you had posted, but without sources or stating where you got them. Parsecboy 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, if we start citing Chinese and North Korean sources, then Kim Jung-il was born on Baekdu Mountain(he was most likely born in the Soviet Union) and the Korean War was started by the United States. Oh, and for your information, North Korea tries to minimize Chinese role in the war, that North Korea almost single-handedly defeated the U.S. invasion. Should we put that "fact" into the article as well, that Chinese didn't do much during the war? The problem with totalitarian governments is that they use false information as a means to control the masses. While this is also true, to some extent, in democratic countries, but division of power and freedom of speech in democracies work as effective counters against dissemination of false information. Cydevil38 23:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since we have a consensus (I didn't know about a vote), I'm wondering what version you guys want for the infobox. I think that an American estimate is fine, with a Chinese estimate in the article itself, but both estimates in the infobox is fine. Also, if you read the article, it says that the Chinese estimate for shooting down American sabres is "exxagerated".

Note that this discussion is not very important and since everything's clear, I suggest we quickly settle this and then pay attention to the peer review I requested and work towards an A-class or FA-class article. Mr. Killigan 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for that, and I suggest leaving the infobox as it is now. Parsecboy 11:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that, but can somebody double check the numbers against the reference, just in case? I'd do it, but I'm getting ready right now to take a weeks vacation. wbfergus 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice trip. I checked the sources, and everything seems to be correct. Parsecboy 12:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oi,Oi! this is turning back into a CCD!Kfc1864 11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I think this issue is done now. The majority of the editors involved favor leaving the infobox as it stands, save for Ksyrie. Consensus is blatantly obvious; if he/she cannot deal with that, tough. One Chinese user should not be able to disrupt an article, when at least 7 editors with many disparate backgrounds consistently oppose him/her. I move that the issue be dropped, and this conversation be added to the CCD archive. Parsecboy 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Going Going Gone.Kfc1864 01:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

compromise

As a compromise solution, I would suggest to include the Chinese estimates elsewhere in the article, not in the infobox. You can't have a discussion in an infobox IMO. Alternatively, there could be a footnote originating from the infobox, leading to a link to the Chinese consulate.
It was interesting for me to read this Chinese propaganda, I don't see why we would exclude it alltogether. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That's actually what we decided on doing. I believe wbfergus was going to do it, but I think he's on a short vacation. Parsecboy 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this mean just leaving U.S. estimates in the infobox, and having a footnote where it says something like "Chinese estimates differ, please consult *link* for details"? If so, I'd agree to this compromise. Cydevil38 22:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something to that effect. Parsecboy 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw too much irrational decision in this dispute.The numbers from both sides are the same importance,and why some could be referenced and some cann't.Furthermore,the cited reference are not precise or even wrong,which I have found,but people wont face it.If not,Ask a final arbitrition will be a good possibility.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is not importance, but reliability. China, and dictatorships in general, have a history and tendency to alter history to present themselves in a better light. Regardless, consensus is apparent that the Chinese estimates will not be in the infobox, instead they will be in the text of the article. Can we please stop beating this dead horse? Parsecboy 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the chinese number or estimate are not reliable while the american ones are seen reliable.I have already found the irreliabilities of american numbers,even for its own casusalities,it made a big mistake for almost 40 years.So why do we must add the relialbe estimate？Can you give a reason？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We've explained this to you several times already. Stop pushing your POV, a clear and obvious consensus is opposed to your views. Drop it, and either contribute constructively in an NPOV manner to this article, or go elsewhere. Frankly, I'm tired of these pointless arguments. Parsecboy 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So the number is proved wrong for so longtime,how can you justify the reliabilitis of american estimate of chinese casualities made in the sametime?If the american figure of its own casualities hand been wrong for 40 years,why not the chinese casualities？furthermore,the american number for their allied casualitis proved must-be wrong,from the miminum 400k to 2000k,if the Pantagon can't find the reliable casualities for their allieds,how can they estimate the otherside？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are not presenting any new arguments, (or arguments that have not been disproved, for that matter), so I will not bother to address them. Seriously, drop this pathetic campaign. You're not going to all of a sudden convince us that you're right. Go push your pro-PRC POV somewhere else. You're wasting keystrokes here. Parsecboy 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't refute it,even to face the irreliabilities of american figure or estimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, what do you suggest we do? Mr. Killigan 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good link provided by User:Xiahou, that explains the reason for the difference in the two American numbers for casualties. Parsecboy 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This link explains why there are two different version for american figure of american casualities,but in fact there are 3 different version of american casualities,so how can you explain the 3rd？Furthermore,how can you explain the great difference of American allied south korean or UN casualities?If the Pantagon cann't make a clear estimate or figure for their allied how can they estimate their rivals？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What 3rd number? Please provide a source for it. What are the differences between the UN casualties? Please provide sources for those as well. Parsecboy 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

check here [17]

and here Korean War Veterans Memorial--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the source. It's from the US Army, which obviously doesn't include Marines, or Navy or Airforce personnel. Any more arguments I can debunk? Parsecboy 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain the american estimate of UN　casualities from 500K to 2000K？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide a source for your numbers and I will. Parsecboy 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the infobox and the number of Korean War Veterans Memorial--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those numbers are sourced themselves, so I cannot explain the difference with surety, however, it appears obvious to me that the difference is explained by the fact that the South Koreans have repeatedly changed their numbers from somewhere in the 800k dead range to what's in the infobox now. That, however, is not an argument against US accountability, so it's not a valid argument against the US's ability to assess Chinese casualties. Set 'em up, and I'll knock 'em down. Parsecboy 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Better your check the link of South Korean casualities it is from an american site,not a korean one.Furthermore,the failure of american accountabilities went errors for 40 years,so why we must a the theire estimate of chinese casualities made in the same time？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no error. It was a misinterpretation of the way the DoD maintained their records at the time by the public (i.e., historians and the media). Sure, it took 40 or however many years for historians to figure out that the DoD wasn't listing just those killed actually in the conflict, but all military personnel who died during the time frame, but the records themselves are more or less flawless. Like Hanzohattori said much earlier in this debate, find some American dogtags, and prove the list is wrong. It was 3 difference slices of American military deaths from 1950 to 1953. One was total deaths, be it war related or not, one was total military, and the 3rd was just the US Army. It doesn't matter what language those links are in, the important fact is that they come from the RoK government, which has, like I said, repeatedly altered their own casualty numbers quite drastically. Obviously, the American DoD wouldn't have access to the rosters of the RoK Army. Your objections are baseless. Can we move along here? Parsecboy 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently,the DoD of US also had no access to rosters of PLA Army.Since they don't got the precise or right one,it's better to remove it rather than keep it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. I've already explained in detail how these estimates are formed. It's reliably sourced, and it will remain. Accept it, and move on. Parsecboy 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore,the 2000K casualities may be the American estimate of south korean casualities,Since you insist on keeping the American estimate of chinese and north korean casualities,why not include also the south korean casualities?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably because it's not the American estimate. Like I've said a couple times now, the RoK government has repeatedly changed their casualty numbers, not the US government. If you want to include both numbers in the RoK listing, go right ahead, but do so in an unbiased and NPOV manner. Parsecboy 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably,you are just finding the excuse of failure of american source,first,they made a 30% or 40% wrong for their own figure for 40 years,secondly,they cann't get the real estimate of their allied.So why we must add this kind of source.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a pathetic and intellectually dishonest argument, if I ever saw one. The reasons for the 3 different US numbers are clearly and logically explained. There were no errors. Different data sets, yes. But no (or if there are, infinitesimally smally) errors. Any objective person can see and understand that. As for the UN numbers, that is also blatantly obvious. When there are differences between two numbers, that are very similar to the differences between the two RoK casualty numbers, it shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots. You're really disappointing me with these arguments. Please present a logical, objective argument, in good faith, or stop talking. Parsecboy 23:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I found your words not reasonable,if men do errors when counting the number,it's much more possible he or she made mistake in estimating,simply counting will be less wonky than estimate.The counting fails for 40 years,why not the estimate.Since the American source cann't find the reliable casualities for their allies why inscrit the on the monument?The intellectually dishonesty doesn't fall in my side.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said before, it was not an error. Different data sets, yes, but not an error. I'm not going to repeat myself a 3rd time about the differences in UN casualties. Ksyrie, stop repeating the same tired and obviously false arguments again and again. Parsecboy 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep going,the chinese estimate of american casaulities is also a different data sets,so it's fairly common to add it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The failure means the clerk mistake,who added all the casualities wordwidely.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the Chinese estimates of American casualties is blatant propaganda, so including them is not fairly common. It's not a clerk's mistake, it's a misunderstanding by historians of what the data represents. This has been explained several times now. You've sufficiently turned this dead horse into glue, you've been categorically proven wrong with all of your arguments. Lets move onto a different, relevant topic, please. Parsecboy 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The American estimate of chinese casaulities insn't bllatatn propaganda?Since you insist on the chinese estimate as propagande,the american one cann't escape the guilty.LOL,the historian mistake,if it's the mistake of historian,the 500K number wont be inscrit in the stone of Korean War Veterans Memorial--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed the differences between free and government controlled medias. We don't need to do it again. There is concrete proof that the American numbers are correct. The 3 numbers are subsets of the same data. The 50k-some total casualties, the 30k-some casualties of the actual war, and the 20k-some casualties for the US Army. There is no 500k number, there is the approximately 50k number. However, the KWM was built in 1986, over 20 years ago, before the misunderstanding was discovered. Parsecboy 00:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the mistake took place,why you insist on adding the american estiamate of chinese casualities,why not add the 2000K UN casualities,which is also from the freecontrolled media?The intellectual dishonesty means not facing their own failure.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I already said it was perfectly fine to add the higher UN number, provided you give a source for the number. However, it's not an "American failure", it's most likely propaganda from the RoK government (if you look at when they changed the casualty figures, it happened when the government transitioned from a military junta to a democratically elected government). If you want to include both RoK casualty numbers, go right ahead. Parsecboy 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont' know how do you find the 500K or 2000K casualities are the RoK propaganda,it's all from american website,or american war monument,neither written in Korean or in the Korean war monument.You are just trying the scapegoat for your own mistake.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the UN deaths at the KWM article are some 600k, not 2 million, so get your numbers right. Secondly, it's blatantly obvious to anyone who is objective, that the differences in the numbers correspond to the different numbers put forward by the RoK government for their own casualties. The RoK Army was close to 50% of the total UN forces, with the other 50% American. The other Allied countries provided relatively minute numbers compared to the rest, and their casualties number in the hundreds or thousands. Obviously, those numbers are irrelevant to the UN casualty differences. If it's not the South Korean casualty changes, what is it? You're fond of making these allegations, but provide absolutely no arguments to back them up, nor do you provide sources. Again, the total UN numbers are a compilation of the various governments' reports. If those governments change their figures, of course the UN figure will change. What is preventing you from accepting that obvious fact? Parsecboy 00:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We here talked about the casualities not the death number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy,you are trying to make useless excuse,if it is the RoK made the number changed,it will be reflected in Korean website,not the American one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you have no place on the English Wikipedia. WE are repeating the same discussion.

Another support to add the chinese estimate of american casualities

See the Operation August Storm which list both the soviet and japaneses estimate.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this compare with the Korean War? there's no mention of it.Kfc1864 09:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The casualities infobox show both soviet and japanese estimates--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Again,this issue is over. But, as one last point about the reliability of the Chinese "estimate" of even their own casualties, the Chinese government and scholars can't even agree (or narrow down) their estimate of how many people were killed under Chairman Mao's numerous purges. The numbers range from 40 million to 78 million, which is quite a huge spread. If these numbers can't be narrowed down and/or verified by any official population lists of the various villages, towns, etc., what does that say about the reliability of any other casualty lists from the same timeframe? The Korean War occurred near the middle of Mao's numerous purges (1927-1976), so this is the only period of Mao's rule that can accurately report any numbers? I hardly think so. It's pure propaganda in a typical communist format. wbfergus 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:wbfergus,we talk here the casualities of Korean war.The different number of chinese famine is really common,because,there's no national census.BTW,the US causualities of Korean War failled for 40 year by a simple mistake without anyone knowing,the I cann't hardly believe their estimate of chinese and north korean casualities,especially when they cann't make their story sound plausible when they cann't find the reasonalbe casualities of their allied.I can say,the estimate of US number is totally worthless.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:wbfergus,use your mind rather than ear to caculate the simple number,1950,the population of China is about 500 million,a loss of 40 to 80 million means the loss of 8-16% population,in the demorgraphic,it's disastrous,in the WWII,the the loss of 15% of population of Soviet made its population stagnates for the more than 50 years,so how can China who lost the same percentage of population grew from 0,5 billion to 1,0billion in the reign of Mao？Can you just make a reasonable explanation？--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So the Chinese have accurate numbers (census, roles, whatever) for the military during the Korean War, but not for any other aspect of Chinese life or society for a 40 year period? And I'm not talking about the deaths due to the famines, but to the intentional and deliberate act of purging those opposed to Mao's regime. Read Mao Zedong. And once again, the explanation of the difference in the American numbers have been repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated, and you still cannot seem to grasp the (very) simple concept that originally the number was the total of all Americans who died anywhere in the world during the Korean War timeframe, and that this number was subsequently revised to to only show the American casualties within the Korean Theater, those who actually became a casualty in Korea or due to actions within Korea (in case they died on their way back to the United States from wounds suffered in Korea). In short, the American numbers are immensely more accurate than the Chinese numbers. Of the two "sources" you like to reference for the Chinese numbers, one is from a politician who says they are an estimate, and the other one from the museuum states that it's a work in progress (not complete), again just another estimate. If you may have been referring to the discrepency of the reported UN casulaties, then again, that has been repeated numerous times as well. South Korea's casulties are incorporated into the UN numbers, and South Korea doesn't even know the extent of their casulties to this day. They keep revising their numbers, and therefore the total UN casulty numbers change accordingly. This has absolutely nothing to do with the American casulties or how how the United States has reported the total UN casulties. If the South Korean numbers were removed from the UN casulty reports, then those numbers would have been pretty much the same over all the years. That number only changes as South Korea has changed their casualty estimates. wbfergus 11:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I had said the the casualitie figure was presented in the recent years by local millitia authorities.And the list is incomplete as I had mentioned before.The purge calculation is never intentionally done by any chinese authorities,because,may once purged now in the office and some time he fell to the ground for a third time,just check Deng Xiaoping,who was in power after 1978,and he has been purged for 3 times,and finally hold the office.So it's not clear who in the end being purged or purge others,some once persecuted others be persecuted in the next round,vice versa.And really many died of this kind of political persecution.It's very clear that the estimate of UN causualities by US army should be more accurate than their estimate of their enemies,the UN force did job in a whole,not separately,if an american troop advanced with an korean or brith one,and the korean british one encounted the large number chinese or north korean troops and suffered great loss,there must somethings called the intelligence in common to be reported to the american troops saying like this our flank lost 1 division etc,so it's fairly obvious,the US got more accurate UN casualities estimate than chinese and north korean estimate.Just the common sense--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 12:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, drop it. You are not going to force your POV on this article. Deal with it, and move on. Consensus is clearly in support of leaving the article as it is. You may not have noticed, butWikipedia operates by consensus. Perhaps you should read that article, as you apparently do not know it. Parsecboy 20:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Ksyrie, I think the casualty estimate is put on there because the number is not as outlandish as the Chinese claim her (which has bn provd 240,000 wrong.)Kfc1864 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

turely wrong,the core is that American only accept their estimate of other nation,but refuse receive the same estimate from other nation.As you can infer,it's totally against the NPOV,and totally amerciancentric,no matter which estimate proves to be right in the end,the right to express oneself is the essentiel right of all the human being.The behavior blocking other from estimating the American casualities reflect the hegemony.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government sure takes that right seriously. The reason we accept the American number is that it's been reviewed time and time again by reputable historians, etc. The Chinese number has not been evaluated. Therefore, it is not reliable. Parsecboy 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no concensus made,the only non-binding poll serve only as the attitude collector.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

your telling us "right to express oneself is the essentiel right of all the human being" while trying to get us to take the 'estimate' of a nation who witholds this very thing from its own people. The irony borders on humor. No concensus? Here is the offical wiki policy just in case [[18]] "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it" well we got everyone who is against = concensus. Also key part here "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute" read the Statement of complaint section [[19]] change the names to fit here. I think you will see a parallel.--Xiahou 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-binding Straw Poll

Note that this is non-binding, and being used solely to see if we can finally put this issue (what numbers to use in the infobox for US and Chinese casualties) to rest by everybody agreeing to something. If there is not unanimous approval, I suggest we finally submit this to arbitration.,check the foreword.You can find hereTalk:Korean_War/Chinese_Casualty_Discussion#Non-binding_Straw_Poll.Just keep in mind,this poll serves solely to see if all the one can agree or not.And the propounder suggest if no everybody unanimous approval,we wil go to the mediation precedure,and when I tried to raise a mediation precedure,some editor just use it as a consensus?Strangely enough.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When I voted,I presumed other voters really understanding what the propounders had said,and I noticed,some of them are native english speakers,so if not all the bodies don't understand the meaning of unanimous,you can check the wiktionary,unanimous.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyri, it's bcaus it was just about a fortnight aftr anothr mdiation.Kfc1864 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nonbinding"? If a poll shows a consensus, then thats that. Again, you guys, this is discussion is seriously ridiculous. I've never seen such argument over something like casualy numbers that one editor proposes arbitration, something I think is definitely not needed. Mr. Killigan 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not I who raised such poll,and its purpose is well shown in its preface.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I put forth the aforementioned poll to see if we could all agree to something so that we could finally end this petty argument. As I remember, Ksyrie is still the only one who is insisting on the Chinese estimates of American casualties be listed in the infobox. I suggested several alternatives, including listing the Chinese estimates (properly sourced) in the text of the article itself, and therefore the information would still be available to other readers to make up their own mind as to which numbers to believe, but evidently that is still not sufficient for Ksyrie. I started into this "discussion" in "good faith", but the constant bickering over this point even in light of reasonable alternatives has left me feeling like an UNC negotiator at a Military Armistice Commision Meeting at the Joint Security Area. The more this issue is pressed without acceptance of a compromise, the more likely I will be to resist any other alternatives in the future. wbfergus 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also forgot, it appears that Ksyrie will not be satisfied until he either gets his (unreasonable) way or this finally does get to arbitration and his opinion gets slammed down as being unreasonable in light of alternatives being suggested and summarily rejected and overwhelming concensus against him. wbfergus 09:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you assumed good faith,you will accept the chinese estimate of american casualities,as I had shown,the historic figures proved to be wrong,and an estimate from other side will make the number more reliable.And I found no other estimates in other war such as the Operation August were banned from listing in the infobox,but why the chinese and north korean estimate cann't？Following the lenghty discussion,you cann't make such point clear,and just saying you didn't accept it.It's something most ridiculous I had encountered in wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthemore,User:wbfergus,If you are decent man,you wont forget the words you had stated in the poll？Before the poll start,you said,it's not for making a consensus,and after the result coming out,you overthrew what you had said,and claiming it's concensus.What you had said and what you had don differd great.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, you apparently have very little experience with disputes on Wikipedia (which is contradictory to your edit history. So perhaps you just don't pay attention during these disputes, as you seem to be doing here). Firstly, unanimity is not required for consensus. There are at least 7 editors who favor keeping the article as it stands. You are the only one trying to change things. Take the hint. Second, the purpose of a poll is to determine if a consensus exists. So, we can take from the poll that everyone (including you) voted to leave only the American number of American casualties in the infobox. Ok, done. All except you voted to keep the American estimate of Chinese casualties in the infobox. 7 vs 1? That's a pretty clear consensus. And no, assuming good faith is not required when one is evaluating the veracity of sources. Especially when one is from a Chinese politician. We've been through this time and time again. Seriously, drop it. I assure you in no uncertain terms that you will not change this article to suit your POV. You will not convince us with your tired arguments here. If you want to start an edit war, I have no qualms about reporting you or anyone else for disruptive editing. So stop wasting your time. Go somewhere else, or contribute positively. You've demonstrated time and time again that you're only here to advance your POV, not for the good of the article. Parsecboy 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont kick the ball to me,the poll was supposed to be nonbinding and served only to see if all the one agree or not,if not,we continue to other dispute procedure.It's clearly written and all the one understood.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Ksyrie: unanimity is not required to form a consensus. It's a good thing if we can get it, but on many things, it's impossible, because there's always one or two editors so stubborn that they won't back down. There's no need to continue in the dispute resolution process, because there is a strong consensus here. Why can't you accept that? Please don't avoid that question. Parsecboy 11:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to put words into anybody's mouth, but I think the concensus is as follows: Almost all of us are content with the way the infobox is. If you want to ammend the text of the article to also include the Chinese estimates of US/UN casulaties, feel free to do so. If you truly insist on this issue not dying until the Chinese estimate is included in the infobox, then go ahead and start the arbitration request and see how far that will progress. I really don't think it go very far at all, but that is up to you, Ksyrie. Personally, I think your efforts will be better utilized working on improving other articles on which you seem to have some knowledge and expertise. I was really hoping the vote could have accomplished everybody agreeing on something, but you are the only one who seems to think that the Chinese "estimate" is worthy (reliable enough) of being included in the infobox. wbfergus 12:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:wbfergus.Just chek what you had written.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ksyrie, I seriously think this discussion is over. You appear to be the only one arguing in favor of having the Chinese estimates in the infobox. I you still want to insist on including them in the infobox, I suggest that you submit a Request for Arbitration with all of the pertinent facts. I think though that a better use of your time would be to improve many of the "stub-class" articles I have started under category:Military units and formations of the People's Volunteer Army. I think that you could probably improve these articles quite a bit with your access to other Chinese documents which I either can't access or can't understand if I could access them. wbfergus 19:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)