Talk:Korean War

Collapsible lists

Hi.

Just wanted to say that it'd be better if the collapsible medical and other support lists would be non-collapsible and expanded by default, as, otherwise, content is simply missed by the viewer at first glance and it would be better for visibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.16.173 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is neither signed nor has a timestamp please sign it using tildes (~) UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Consistency of findings of National Defense Corps incident

As a neutral lay-reader:

The "National Defense Corps Incident" page says that "...and tens of millions of won was misappropriated to President Rhee Syngman's political fund." with a valid reference: [국민방위군 사건 (in Korean). National Archives of Korea. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2010.]

Yet on topic this page, under section "Starvation" it says Rhee Sygman was not involved. This is inconsistent or misleading. I suggest the quote above plus reference be added to the end of the relevant paragraph in this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.9.238 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is neither signed nor has a timestamp please sign it using tildes (~),you also need a source wp:verifiability UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Typo in Belligerents list

In the Belligerents list, there's a typo right under "United Nations" that just says "Template:FlagU". Could someone with semi-protected editing privileges fix this so that it correctly lists the United States? Thanks. Rabbitish (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024

change old South African Union flag to present Republic of South Africa Flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moswari (talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, use flag contemporaneous with the event. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Korean war has extended.

We need to consider updating this wiki page- with the current affairs. The Korean war has never ended, with the Involvement of the North Korean troops. The Korean war has just relocated to Ukraine region. - A new country needs to be updated and Soviet Union must have a change considered to Russia.

As nothing has changed. However since the involvement of the Korean troops in support of Russia. This represents a huge problem for America and England - we never signed an armistice treaty with North Korea, We are still at war with North Korea. They may have changed uniforms into Russian but the Korean war has NOT officially ended. Anyone who went to help or volunteer might want to remember Kim Jung un and his people promised to do things to our people if chance presented it self. If Korean infantry or Chinese infantry engaged with people of Foreign nationals, regardless if they are in Ukrainian uniform. It gets more complicated.

(we are still at war with North. Korea) PilotBartram (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As the article states, the Korean War ended with the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953. This article is limited to the events of that period of conflict. It is not a platform for commentary on the ongoing events in Korea. The article on North Korea–South Korea relations deals with current and ongoing issues and events between the two Korean states. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you insane there is no Armistice agreement signed in 1953. There was a ceasefire. The Korean war never ended. Watch this, it says it right at the start [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tad8OjqYT7E

Re-read the korean war page it never ended. Why do I really have to become a history teacher? hmm basic stuff. 90.198.122.21 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the article Korean Armistice Agreement. Have a nice day. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Instead of just ignoring the fucking facts, accept there is no armistice for the Korean war. THERE is 2 korean wars. One ended, the second one never ended. The documentary and your own wiki page proves the war is still on-going. You have not grasp the basic principles watching the provided documentary and I would take it that Peter Snow and the BBC are more capable of fact checking than you are.

The Korean war NEVER ended. 90.198.122.21 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can't be civil, there is nothing to discuss. Childish profanity and insults will not help your case. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

from your own reference -

Like Syngman Rhee, North Korean leader Kim Il Sung also sought complete unification. The North Korean side was slow to support armistice talks and only on 27 June 1951 – seventeen days after armistice talks had begun – it did change its slogan of "drive the enemy into the sea" to "drive the enemy to the 38th parallel." North Korea was pressured to support armistice talks by its allies the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, whose support was vital to enabling North Korea to continue fighting.

Sought- seek, to obtain, but never having actually done it 90.198.122.21 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As per your own reference, "(...) However, the US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, did not accommodate this attempt to achieve such a treaty. A final peace settlement has never been achieved." - original source here.

It is a technicality, since there is no on-going de facto war, however, it is important to note that on paper the war has not endend. Both Koreas also never stopped increasing their military capabilities and recent events present a relevant excalation in tensions which many experts are saying could lead to a new conflict. Kabagocan (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Date

25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953 (de facto)

(3 years, 1 month and 2 days)

25 June 1950 – present (de jure)

(74 years, 4 months and 1 day)

Note you will see it say 25 June 1950- present 74 years,4 months and 1 day the Korean war has kept going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War 90.198.122.21 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

A, read wp:civility and B, When was the last actual fighting? C, "25 June 1950 – present (de jure) (74 years, 4 months and 1 day)". Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well if you read what I provided, It has happened already North Korean Troops have been confirmed in the Kursk region. They joined the Ukraine-Russia war. It is the Korean war just relocated to Ukraine-Russia. 90.198.122.21 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the Korean war never actually finished, - The involvement of North Korean troops being confirmed by the US defense secretary. Which was confirmed by CNN, this extends the involvement of North Korea which is still in an active war. Into Korean war.

SO it proves the Korean war and actual fighting.

A North Korean soldier has defected to South Korea, according to the Yonhap news agency. The soldier was taken into custody in the northeastern county of Goseong early on Tuesday after crossing the border, Yonhap reported citing an unnamed military source.20 Aug 2024

[2]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/20/north-korean-soldier-defects-to-south-korea-report#:~:text=A%20North%20Korean%20soldier%20has,citing%20an%20unnamed%20military%20source.

[3]https://www.wsj.com/world/u-s-says-north-korean-troops-heading-to-russias-kursk-region-f36312db

[4]https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/europe/ukraine-north-korean-troops-spotted-kursk-intl-latam/index.html

By North Korean being in Kursk they've expanded the war PilotBartram (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not unless RS says it does. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

POTUS tops RS

(President of the United STATES)

[5]Russian soldiers complain about North Korean recruits in audio

The US Defense secretary doesn't speak unless the President Approves it.

So the President of the United states has approved the expansion of Korean war into Ukraine-Russia war PilotBartram (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

first us president to Visit North Korea country American is still at war with

[6]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB63oW_A1BI&pp=ygUYdHJ1bXAgdmlzaXRzIGtpbSBqb25nIHVu PilotBartram (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is not an RS. Also read wp:synthesis, we need an RS actually saying that the Russia-Ukrnaine war is now an extension of the Koran war, not your wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

ok So we have Reuters [7]https://www.reuters.com/world/north-korean-troops-russia-us-defense-secretary-says-2024-10-23/

US department of Defense government will that do?

[8]https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3943880/austin-confirms-north-korea-has-sent-troops-to-russia/

[9]Euro news

[10]Le monde french source

FYI - Those YouTube links are to the same RS as the links I provided. They are of the same news organizations. So stop trying to move the goal posts and accept it.

The Korean war has expanded. PilotBartram (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, so, which of those sources say (in their words, quote please) this is an extension of the Korean war? untill you provide the quote my resposne is no and remains no until,. I say otherwise, I have spent enough time on this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you are someone who needs to be hit over the frying pan, so you can accept your been hit on the head with a frying pan.

"Austin Confirms North Korea Has Sent Troops to Russia

Oct. 23, 2024 | By Jim Garamone, DOD News | "

There is your quote - Any movement of North Korea troops into Russia to fight into Ukraine as in the Kursk region is an expansion of the Korean war.

layman's terms. Something so simplified you don't need it explained or put "right in front of you" to accept. You get taught when young how to tie your shoe laces, you've grown up and you no longer need it shown, you no longer need to go slow. You do it automatically. - So now in your 40s do you really need a hand-by-hand picture of how to tie your shoe laces?

Or do we really need to connect the dots here

As the Korean war has never ended.

Deployment of Korean troops into Russia to Fight in Ukraine, is an expansion of the war.

South Korea has offered to send weapons to Ukraine.

They have or are trying to re-locate the war into the East Europe conflict

The direct quote from "Austin Confirms North Korea Has Sent Troops to Russia" is your quote.

that means the Korean war has expanded.

Because of this one very simple FACT!

The people who have gone joined the International Legion for Ukraine, when fighting against the North Korean troops can be taken prisoner of war, as they have promised to do and bring them back to North Korea. Well they are Prisoners of war -well which war?

Take the bull by the horns- take the lead or get out of the way of someone who can like me. I am prepared to go over your head on this - I am doing the curtsey of telling you first.

I am right. PilotBartram (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

See Korean conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

PilotBartram read the Talk page archives: we get a consensus?, the Korean War ever actually end?, of War?, end date, the article be rewritten in the present tense?, Still at War, Korean War is over now. Every few years someone like you comes along and argues that the Korean War is ongoing and is proven wrong. Your entire argument seems to be centered around the fact that North Korean troops may be in combat in Ukraine and that somehow that is part of the Korean War relocated to Ukraine which is simply untenable. When it is proven that North Korea is a combatant, they can be added to the Belligerents on the Russo-Ukrainian War page, but that has zero relevance to the Korean War or the Korean conflict. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a completely different war. A continuation of Korean war would be if North Korea fought with South Korea over their country. If North Korean troops was in Ukraine, it would be part of Ukraine/Russia war unless somehow it later covers a Korean Civil war. Which currently it does not. 49.180.204.53 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Union of soviet socialist republics "unofficial"belligerent

can someone provide a reference to this? "Soviet Union (unofficial)" UnsungHistory (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing nobody provide a source in months,I will remove it UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Saudi Role

According to a tweet by the South Korean embassy in Riyadh : Saudi Arabia was the country that provided supplies to South Korea in the war between South and North Korea that began on June 25, 1950. Source

I think Saudi Arabia should be included on “other support” 2001:16A4:6:334F:292E:E577:9A0D:35AE (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

We need a better source then a tweet. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia supported UNSC Resolution 83 according to Yearbook of the United Nations 1950, p. 225, but reading the following 3 pages that lists assistance offered to ROK, Saudi Arabia was not in the list. So Saudi Arabia probably didn't offer material assistance in 1950. It would be useful to check Yearbook 1951-3 to see if Saudi Arabia was included in later years. --Happyseeu (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"Supported by" is deprecated (see template doc). The listing is for those engaged as combatants. The question is therefore moot. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Stalemate

I don't know what history books you guys read but in Australia, we recognize the war ended in a stalemate. And it's generally more accurate to describe the outcome as a "military and political stalemate" rather than "inconclusive". Because 'Stalemate' captures both the military deadlock and the political divisions that persisted after the war ended, reflecting neither side achieved their objectives of completely defeating the other or unifying the country. Whereas "inconclusive" is somewhat more vague and doesn't fully convey specific military and political outcomes, such as the continued division of Korea and the fact that the armistice effectively preserved the status quo. So "military and political stalemate" is the precise term and why I have clarified it in the results. BTW maybe necessary to say this but I earlier edited talk page 27 mins ago as IP editor - 49.180.204.53. IP49XX (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also I should add criticism that the previous edit is TOO BRIEF and TOO UNHELPFUL. What happened? I recall 3 years ago, the results were far more informative. Here is what it looks like 3 years ago where it's very deatiled in the results where it matters and helps readers quickly understand the accurate results. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=1049732432) How did it go backwards later where someone decided to hide the results and keep it as censored as you possibly can. I propose returning to the long standing version of 2019 that stayed for many many years (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_War&oldid=921577887) - that is very informative and no good reason at all to to wipe it all from reader's easy reading. IP49XX (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Primary infoboxes which states "The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed." Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Does not have to say "stalemate" for results-- doesn't mean it's a rule where no added information is permitted. As long as it's helpful and accurate for readers, there shouldn't be an issue as it's not a nuance but a hard and reader-useful fact that Korea remains divided. Also from at least 2019 to 2021, no editor had any issues with writing it's a stalemate because that is what it literally is and widely acknowledged by many reliable sources. It's accurate and nobody denies it as a fact. The problem with just saying "inconclusive" is that it's not very helpful and doesn't inform as much compared to adding it's a military stalemate and Korea continues to remain divided (which nobody disputes those facts). IP49XX (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The MOS says X victory, Inconclusive or See aftermath, that's it. If a reader wants to know more they read the article. Don't edit war this. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RESULT links to the section given by Mztourist. WP:RESULT was also the reason given for reverting your edit. It is WP:BRD not BRRD. The guidance there reflects the community view that the infobox is not a place for detail or nuance - in accordance with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a step backwards where a rule is making an article worse than 2019 version. Adding in details like Korea continues to remain divided is like the bare minumum results that is useful for all readers to know. Perhaps there's a reason why community deems it as an unnecessary task or a fussy inconvenience, but ultimately we should be thinking about the readers instead of being overly loyal to a rule when it doesn't make sense and prevents one from improving the article. IP49XX (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The MOS was developed to present a consistent approach across pages and all the issues that you raise have been considered, but you are welcome to raise this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

An infobox is not the place for prose or prose like statements. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is a supplement to the lead and the article should remain complete without the infobox. The lead is the place for detail, nuance or statements in prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Korean War is a Frozen conflict per North and South Korea: A Frozen Conflict on the Verge of Unfreezing?, which means it has not concluded. The Korean Armistice Agreement doesn't end the war legally. Therefore "status" should be used instead of "result". "Result" is used only when the war is ended legally. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Most modern conflicts are frozen conflicts that haven't been ended legally (e.g. The Six Day War with Syria). This tiresome BBC talking point has been discussed repeatedly in the past. No change is necessary here. Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Was there a discussion that reached consensus on this? I haven't been involved with discussion about military conflicts much. Happyseeu (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to go back through the Talk archives. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

One-sided Stalemate Chapter

Note this is a different Talk topic from above on results info-box. But I read the Stalemate chapter and it is too heavily and almost exclusively on just Chinese frustrations. Except it goes both ways. Both sides had reasons to give up trying to unify Korea by force; and the movement of armies on the ground never again matched the fluidity of the war’s first year.[11] This was not entirely up to the Chinese but also America/UN own frustrations too. And yet there is barely info provided on why US gave up on the war too. To fully capture the nature of the stalemate, the following should also be added:

1. American Frustrations and Dropping Morale:

The United States also experienced significant frustrations during this phase. The war, which had started with the promise of quickly repelling North Korean aggression, had devolved into a drawn-out and static conflict. By 1951, it became clear that unifying Korea under a democratic government through military means was no longer achievable.

Public support for the war in the U.S. waned as casualties mounted and the costs of the conflict escalated, with no clear end in sight. This domestic discontent further pressured the Truman administration, and later the Eisenhower administration, to seek a negotiated settlement.

In other words, it's important that the chapter should recognize a Mutual Stalemate:

As the stalemate was not solely a product of Chinese frustrations but also reflected the recognition on both sides that victory was unattainable. The UN Command's superior firepower was unable to break Chinese defenses, just as Chinese forces could not overcome the UN’s technological and logistical advantages. Guerrilla activity in South Korea, supported by North Korean remnants, persisted and created additional strain on resources.

The static nature of the front lines and the high human and material costs of offensives led to declining morale among UN forces, contributing to the decision to prioritize armistice negotiations. All that info is omitted and hence propose to include them in. IP49XX (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS that support all that, you can add it, properly referenced. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course I do. If you google search (By 1951, American public opinion OF KOREAN WAR) - you should see Google AI provide a number of reliable sources stating that it's not just the Chinese that were terribly frustrated with the stalemate and lack of significant progress. The American public too was frustrated and the presidency faced much scrutiny and political pressure to end a war which still did not yield victory. I have added in two paragraphs to the article and provided many reliable sources, (two that I personally read from Stueck and Cumings) to support the fact that high frustration with the stalemate was indeed mutual. IP49XX (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned when you say two that I personally read from Stueck and Cumings - implying that you have not sighted other sources you might rely upon. The actual content of a source being cited should always be confirmed to ensure that it is being accurately represented (eg WP:VER). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I somehow gave that incorrect impression. The other sources were also personally read by me too and are US state gov history websites that supports specific info that US public became increasingly unhappy with the war and frustrated with the stalemate. Took less then 2 mins to read and no reason for them to lie. But anyone who is familiar with Korean war, should be able to know this already. Any decent historian would know it was not only the Chinese side that lost spirit and had difficulties in ending the stalemate but thee US also recognized difficulties in ending stalemate and had public pressure to end the war after struggling to break the stalemate. I suggest (Wikipedia reference desk) WP:RD if you doubt my facts. IP49XX (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So why not link not them? Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh? This is now becoming a bit weird. I did link to them and why wouldn't I? Example is - https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/koreanwar#:~:text=The%20Korean%20War%20was%20difficult,when%20negotiation%20stalled%20as%20well.] Unless you have proper questions about the sourcing, I do not wish to continue this discussion as you guys are acting almost like I don't provide links or questioning if my source supports it - despite it does. What is also very weird is how even as of 2024 before today on wiki article on stalemate chapter, you only mostly hear about the Chinese frustration with the stalemate (a massive paragraph full of quotes expressing unhappiness with the leadership) as if they are the only country that were upset about the stalemate and couldn't change it. But Americans evidentially had plenty of their own domestic issues with the stalemate and had plenty to say on that yet there was barely a sentence before - making it unbalanced. But it's impossible to hide any of that today when there are too many reliable sources including official US gov history sites backing it too. IP49XX (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Your text "Public discontent with the war grew in the United States as casualties mounted and the conflict proved increasingly difficult to fight and there was no significant progress.<ref>{{Cite web |title=NSC-68 and the Korean War ", the source does not seem to say that talking as it does about war without end. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's already covered by historians William Stueck and Bruce Cumings who discuss the significant impact of casualties during major offensives and the inability to achieve a decisive victory through that during the Korean War - which impacted public sentiment in the United States. The antiwar politics in the U.S. leveraged losses during Autumn offensive campaign, to criticize the war effort, emphasizing its human and financial toll and to emphasize why victory at this rate was not feasible. Nonetheless, I don't want to argue on whether high casualties with low progress, ever factored into anti-war morale so I now erased that part about high casualties in that text to keep it restricted to the US gov source bare simple summary saying - fighting was too difficult and became unpopular and that is why morale dropped. Which isn't that different from what the source wrote. The Korean War was difficult to fight and unpopular domestically. In late 1951, the two sides bogged down on the 38th parallel, and the conflict seemed reminiscent of trench warfare in World War I. The American public tired of a war without victory, especially when negotiation stalled as well. The stalemate eroded Truman’s public support and helped to elect the Republican presidential candidate, popular military hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower, as the next President.[12] IP49XX (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes because you have not provided adequate referencing (particularly page numbering) allowing other users to check that the refs say what you claim. Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't even bother to read the sources. Britannica experts completely supports everything in the Autumn Offensive. US gov websites completely supports the info in the lower chapter. I had a feeling this would happen so I came super prepared. It's not my fault that you didn't read the books and it's not my responsibility that you are unaware of the history. But I am willing to take to the ultimate process of dispute resolution. However first I recommend you go to Google Play store and download Chatgpt or ask Google Ai. They are very good at informing those who lack understanding of the history and want to quickly fact-check. They will back me up. If you are still not convinced, then go to Wikipedia reference desk and ask them yourself despite US Gov history websites already confirm it as facts. Nonetheless, I provided heaps of sources that aren't paywalled and easily read by everyone. I deliberately added them in as extra support and they alone should had been enough. If you can't agree with any of this then we will escalate this to dispute resolution channels. IP49XX (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't even bother to read the edit summary provided by Mztourist. Dates need to use dmy format in this article yet you have reinstated material with the incorrect date format. Source citations need to give page numbers for books and like. There were three book sources cited in the material reverted by Mztourist. These are reasonable requirements set in P&G. If you have viewed these sources it is a simple task to add the pages. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They had deleted information that was completely sourced by Britannica that's not even paywalled. As well as the lower paragraph that's not sourced by paywalled sources and anyone can read it. I can't provide page numbers for those sources as they are websites. But I don't want to deal with drama and can easily support rest of info using Britannica and Us state official history websites alone. So am now just relying on non paywalled sources instead.IP49XX (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are three book sources for which pages are required. One is an ebook but it should have some form of pagination and page identification, if not a section. It is a simple ask (plus the dates that I fixed for you) - hardly worth all the electrons killed complaining about the deletion. I presume you have consulted these books and can provide the page numbers? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the paragraph you inserted conforming it to the rest of the page. With regard to your comments that we haven't read the sources and aren't aware of the history, before you go throwing around insults you should look at who wrote the vast majority of the Korean War pages. Relying on ChatGPT or GoogleAI is not advisable. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I hear your concerns so have decided to limit my edit to only paywalled sources. But it's true that Chinese and North Korean forces held their ground despite significant losses and their Guerrilla activity was not easy to beat, leading to the Korean Armistice Agreement, which established a demilitarized zone (DMZ) along the 38th parallel. Because General Matthew B. Ridgway, recognize that realistically unifying Korea through military means was no longer achievable. That was in both history books. However it will take some time to find non paywalled sources, if ever, to explicitly support that so I added in a reduced paragraph instead that's either full supported by reliable sources or already by Wikipedia itself.[13]

Do note;

1. For better transition from paragraphs focusing on China's problems prior, I first wrote in "While Chinese forces faced significant logistical and supply difficulties" - to conform to rest of article - an acknowledgment of the paragraphs above that went on about Chinese logistical problems. I don't think you need a source when Wikipedia already supports that.

2. And I also don't need a source to state UN has superior firepower as we all know it to be true, but it should be added for context to emphasize that UN didn't give up the war because they were weaker.

3. But the main parts about Americans finding this war too difficult to fight and public support dropping due to lack of victory and stalemate eroding the president's public ratings and the new president choosing to give up on the war based on all that. That's all well supported by the included non paywalled sources so there should be no more dispute over its sourcing.IP49XX (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review it and the sources and won't until Monday, so there's no consensus yet on what you've added. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)