Korean War was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 25, 2004, September 15, 2004, June 25, 2005, September 15, 2005, June 25, 2006, July 27, 2006, September 15, 2006, June 25, 2007, June 25, 2010, June 25, 2011, June 25, 2012, June 25, 2015, June 25, 2017, June 25, 2019, and June 25, 2022.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum and Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 31, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Readding UN Collation
While the United States did have the largest total number of troops and impact in the conflict but the separation of other combatants to a separate list diminishes the contribution and sacrifice of the British, Canadian, Turkish, and other troops during the war. My request is to readd the combatants to the info box. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the largest contributor of troops to the coalition was South Korea. Nearly double that of the United States. Notwithstanding, the other coalition members do deserve a mention. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's been long enough that we can just add back the casualty list to the infobox, which is already listed in the body text anyway. I don't really know why it was removed in the first place. As far as I can tell the only dispute was about a single belligerent and a fairly minor dispute at that, which could very easily be amended by just listing a range (e.g. 149,000 to 197,000 dead Chinese troops). It's frankly ridiculous that it even went on this long - basically every war page has a casualty infobox with a wider range than that. --Nihlus1 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is not consensus/consent given the previous discussion. Once an edit is challenged, there is an ONUS to gain consensus before reinstating. The issues that resulted in the casualties being removed remain. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, the TOC fulfills the purpose of directing our readers to the appropriate section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been six weeks since I first posted it and over a week since your addition. How has it not been long enough to re-add by now?Nihlus1 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged issue is that the specifically Chinese battle casualties cover a range of 149,000 to 197,000 dead on top of the c. 25,000 missing. The original point remains: why not simply list every other side's undisputed casualties and then throw in "149-197,000 dead, 25,000 missing" for China? Thousands of other war and battle articles on this website have proportionally larger ranges than that.--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wahreit, you have added casualties to the infobox here [1]. There is an existing consensus to not have such detail in the infobox. Perhaps you should have gained consensus for adding this before you altered the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to help improve Wikipedia for the readers. It is not anyone's responsibility to read the entire page's talk page before they feel qualified to edit. An edit holds presumed consensus until disagreement, that's how it works.
Furthermore, I see no "consensus" here either. I just see @Nihlus1 trying to engage in conversation after having his good faith edits reverted, and then getting ghosted.
As of right now, I am in agreement with @Nihlus1 that it is only fair we have a casualties infobox to help readers with less time on their hands with a range that reflects the body. If you truly want to discuss this a consensus issue, then share any substantive arguments as to why you disagree. Wahreit (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing to an existing consensus and that there are reasons why the infobox does not have casualties (see [2]). There is nothing wrong with being bold, just the same as there is nothing wrong with pointing to a previous consensus and the WP:ONUS to gain consensus. However, the reason for deleting your edit to the infobox was inconsistencies between body of article and infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the infobox must follow and reflect the body of the article. Figures in your edit are not a reflection of the body of the article and create an inconsistency between the two. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is dated two years ago and some of editors there don't seem to be active. However, I'm open to reopening the discussion here again to achieve consensus and improve the page.
These are the figures currently up for consideration:
- American casualties come to: 36,574 dead including 3,249 non-battle deaths, 105,685 wounded, 10,281 missing or captured, per Clodfelter
- UN: 4,124 dead, 12,044 wounded per Clodfelter
- ROK casualties come to: 257,000 dead or missing including 184,573 killed or missing in action, with 429,000 wounded per Clodfelter
What seems to be the sticking point are Communist casualties:
Per US-ROK estimates,
- North Korea: 214,899–316,579 dead, 303,685 wounded, 101,680 missing
I believe we can fit all these ranges into the infobox. We can also add the 500k dead Chinese figure cited by Hastings to align the body with the infobox. Open to thoughts.
Should probably also throw in the official figure of 197,653 Chinese dead from this article (a paper owned by the CCP) and the official ROK figures of 137,899 dead and 24,495 missing which appear to be current.--Nihlus1 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are covered by Clodfelter. He cites the US DOD for Chinese and North Korean estimates, while Chinese estimates of their own casualties (Clodfelter includes them) also come from Xu Yan and the Korea World Times.
Hastings provides the 500k dead Chinese figure in his book about the Korean War, plus higher casualties of 415k dead South Korean soldiers. Hastings estimates of UN-US casualties align with what Clodfelter put forth. Van de Ven estimates Chinese and North Korean casualties at 500k apiece in his book "the Wars for China". Wahreit (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the issue isn't accuracy. the issue is the infobox, which we seek to help guide viewers who want a quicker read. the issue is it being in alignment with what the body says. it seems fair to include these ranges in the infobox, with one revison: 171,699-500k Chinese soldiers dead in the infobox Wahreit (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that's not on us to decide, per WP:NOR. the infobox should just summarize the article's body, which the readers can then go and judge for themselves. that means putting the range of estimates in the infobox (with a short blurb of context if necessary) and the full explanation in the article body. currently, that's better than just nothing. Wahreit (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell through a screen what you mean, so be patient. I assume you're in agreement that we should now put the range in the infobox? Wahreit (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree so long as the ranges are differentiated (i.e. 400-500,000 is "western estimates", 171,199-197,653 is "Chinese figures").--Nihlus1 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, with the exception that the 316,579 is from a modern historical database estimate, not the US or ROK militaries.--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wahreit, I don't think you can unilatterally declare a consensus at this time, particularly without waiting for responses. The most substantive issue remains: there are inconsistencies between the infobox and the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The body says 33,739 US KIA and another 2,835 non-battle deaths. Adding these up amounts to 36,574 total US dead, a process allowed by WP:CALC since they originate from the same source. The other numbers (non-battle deaths and wounded) provided in the ranges are Clodfelter's which should have been in the article body, but seem not to be right now. They can be added later.
The new infobox can look like this to reflect the body:
- US: 36,574 dead including 2,835 non-battle deaths, 103,284 wounded, 10,281 missing or captured
- UN: 4,109 dead and missing (adding the numbers from the same source together)
- China: 155,600 killed and missing (low end) from adding the numbers from the same source
This might change if someone puts Clodfelter's numbers in.
Yes. The totals are gathered by adding up the dead figures in the body (direct, and indirect). For example, the US 36,574 dead figure comes from 33,739 US KIA plus another 2,835 non-battle deaths.
No. The body of the article does not mention 4,109 UN dead nor 155,600 Chinese dead. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the body of the article must support and be consistent with anything we put in the infobox. Also, CALC is permitted, for transparency the figure in the infobox should directly corollate. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Deaths from non-American militaries for the United Nations Command totaled 3,730, with another 379 missing"
3,730 + 379 = 4,109 dead and missing
Chinese dead:
"Chinese sources reported that the PVA suffered 114,000 battle deaths, 21,000 deaths from wounds, 13,000 deaths from illness, 340,000 wounded, and 7,600 missing"
The article takes the South Korean and US side. In the interests of history, we should probably also list the North Korean version of the story of how the war started. BTW, it's not because "you're from North Korea"—I mean clearly my name is a South Korean name. But it's more along the line of I HATE the saviorism around the Korean War and skipping over the US economic interests in having the war in the first place. Also skipping over the fact the US ignored Korea's asking to intervene during the Japanese occupation. We shouldn't be painting ANY country "good" or "evil" in the face of history, but with what the facts are: North Korea disputes how the Korean war started. So listing it won't hurt.--KimYunmi (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DUE; we're supposed to proportionately represent claims as they correspond to mainstream views. The view that the war started by an invasion from the South is a fringe one. It's only supported by NK and parts of China; even in China it's debated. I do think maybe NK's argument could be presented a bit more, but at present it doesn't make me lose any sleep. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg)
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2026 (UTC)